Accountability and Transparency

Mining, Freshwater Sources, Accountability and Transparency

World Bank Arbitration Tribunal Refuses to Listen to Those Affected by Mining in Santurbán, Colombia

The World Bank’s International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) has declined to accept an Amicus Curiae that was to be presented by the Committee for the Defense of Water and the Páramo of Santurbán and allied international organizations. Bucaramanga, Bogotá, Washington, Ottawa, Amsterdam. National and international civil society organizations rebuffed the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes’ (ICSID) refusal to accept an Amicus Curiae within the process of the ongoing international arbitration brought forth by Canadian mining company Eco Oro Minerals Corp. against Colombia. The arbitration centre is hearing the ongoing international arbitration put forth by the Canadian company in question against the Andean nation. The company is attempting to pursue its Angostura gold mining project in the Santurbán páramo, located in the northeast of the country. The arbitration questions the decisions taken by the Colombian State to protect its páramos, high mountain wetlands that are a natural source of water for 70% of its inhabitants. The arbitration is being heard at the ICSID, an organization dependent on the World Bank that is in charge of the resolution of disputes between investors and States. Colombia could be condemned to pay $746 million US dollars, an unprecedented sanction for the country. “At a time when Latin American countries are embracing the principles of environmental democracy with the adoption of the Escazú Agreement, ICSID is going in the opposite direction. It is regrettable that in the midst of the regional movement for transparency and participation, ICSID has opted to constrict itself even more. In doing so, it is only generating more anger and distrust, not only in the face of this mechanism, but also in the face of the whole system of Investor-State Arbitration worldwide,” stated Carla García Zendejas, Senior Attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL). “The communities affected by mining in Santurbán have to be heard and can provide crucial elements for the case,” said Carlos Lozano, Senior AIDA Attorney. The organizations consider that the Committee for the Defense of Water and the Páramo of Santurbán has a significant interest in the outcome of the process and that they could have provided expertise to the arbitration tribunal, which would have been helpful for a better decision in the case. In the same way, they urge ICSID to expand citizen participation and make its decision-making processes more transparent. This is transcendental for the public interest of the countries whose governments are subject to its jurisdiction. Find more information on the case here.  PRESS CONTACTS: Alix Mancilla, Comité para la Defensa del Agua y el Páramo de Santurbán, [email protected], +57 311 2439273 Carla García Zendejas, CIEL, [email protected], +1 202 374 2550 Carlos Lozano Acosta, AIDA, [email protected], +57 300 56 40 282 Kirsten Francescone, MiningWatch Canada, [email protected], +14373459881 Kristen Genovese, SOMO, [email protected], +31 65 277 3272, Manuel Perez Rocha, Institute for Policy Studies, [email protected] +1 240 838 6623  

Read more
Accountability and Transparency

Behind the Dams: BNDES Investments in Belo Monte and Hidroituango

To change, one must understand. To understand, discuss. And to discuss, we present this report. In it, we analyze the application of existing international standards for hydroelectric plants through the lens of two of the most significant investments in the history of the BNDES: Hidroituango and Belo Monte. The analysis reveals evidence and offers conclusions and recommendations to the Bank, as well as to the organizations and communities involved. They are concrete elements to help improve the future performance of the financial institution. We hope that these contributions strengthen the dialogue with the BNDES, and facilitate the identification of options toward greater compliance with the values the bank has adopted, particularly those of transparency and social and environmental responsibility.       Read the executive summary Read the complete report in Spanish  Download the Executive Summary in Spanish Read the complete report in Portuguese Read the Executive Summary in Portuguese   

Read more
Accountability and Transparency, Human Rights

As killings increase, how can we defend the defenders?

Of the 87 human rights defenders murdered in Latin America in 2016, 60 were defending rights linked to environmental destruction. That’s according to a new report from Global Witness. Worldwide, at least 200 environmental defenders were killed in 2016, making it the most dangerous year for environmentalists on record. And 60 percent of these murders occurred in Latin America. Disturbingly, these statistics likely underrepresent the problem, as many killings of defenders and activists around the world go unreported. Environmental defenders are also frequently subjected to harassment, intimidation, death threats, arrests, sexual assault, kidnapping, and lawsuits intended to silence them. “The battle to protect the planet is rapidly intensifying and the cost can be counted in human lives,” Global Witness campaigner Ben Leather said. “More people in more countries are being left with no option but to take a stand against the theft of their land or the trashing of their environment. Too often they are brutally silenced by political and business elites, while the investors that bankroll them do nothing.” The roots of the problem Why are so many activists under threat, simply for speaking out and raising awareness about environmentally destructive projects? Governments argue that mining, oil and gas extraction, logging, and dams will boost their countries’ economy. But corporations typically hire outside contractors, creating few if any local jobs. And in many situations, development projects pollute the environment, displace entire communities, and infringe human rights. Some projects, like large hydroelectric dams, also hurt biodiversity and contribute to climate change. Furthermore, governments must often rely on transnational corporations or foreign investment to fund these projects. As a result, profits from mining, oil and gas, or large dams often benefit international corporations or a country’s most-wealthy businessmen, but are not always invested into local communities. This situation produces extreme rates of economic inequality. Honduras, for example, is one of the most unequal countries in Latin America and has had the highest per capita rate of killings of environmental defenders over the last decade. Twenty percent of the wealthiest people in Honduras reap 60 percent of the national income, leaving almost two-thirds of Hondurans to live in poverty or extreme poverty, according to the Organization of American States. When activists—many of them indigenous—speak out against these environmental and economic injustices, they’re often denounced as enemies of progress. Working together, governments and corporations try to silence outspoken defenders. When censorship is not enough, the military, police, and mercenaries are called to silence the opposition with escalating threats and violence. How to defend the defenders Each year, as the problem intensifies, we’re reminded of our duty to stand up for environmental and human rights defenders, and of the need to institute adequate policies for their protection. Here are several ways governments and citizens alike can protect defenders around the world: International Law. Governments around the world are party to international treaties and conventions that obligate them to uphold certain human rights standards. When these basic rights aren’t respected, it’s up to the international community to step in and protect activists under threat by pressuring governments to enforce the law. AIDA works in this way to hold governments accountable and encourage the immediate adoption of measures to guarantee the life and integrity of at-risk activists. “States must guarantee a favorable environment in which people can safely perform their work to protect the natural world,” AIDA attorney Astrid Puentes Riaño said. “States should also investigate these instances of violence. The murders of those who bravely defend the environment must not go unpunished.” Domestic Legislation. When international pressure doesn’t work, domestic laws can help pressure States into protecting activists who speak out. In the United States, for example, legislation has been proposed that would suspend US military and police aid to Honduras until the Honduran government investigates human rights violations in the country. The bill could help protect activists there and serve as an example for other countries that would like to follow suit. Emergency Measures. Emergency visa measures or diplomatic protections to remove endangered activists from harm can be useful in relocating activists across borders or protecting them in another way. Global Solidarity Campaigns.  Solidarity campaigns organized by coalitions of human rights organizations and supported by the media hold great potential.  If these outlets simultaneously, consistently, and reliably raised the alarm of an activist under threat, governments and corporations might think twice before trying to silence the person at risk. This, of course, involves you too. There’s no substitution for the mobilization of community support—in the streets, on social media, in your daily life. Standing up, speaking out and raising awareness is the first step toward building a more just future. These are just some of the solutions to this growing problem, and their success depends on all of us. Showing we’re not afraid to fight for environmental justice and a future that respects everyone’s human rights is not just a good idea, it’s necessary for our survival.

Read more
Accountability and Transparency, Capacity Building, Climate Change

As US withdraws from Paris Climate Agreement, Latin America must step up

Without US participation, other countries must urgently limit greenhouse gas emissions. Now that President Donald Trump has withdrawn the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement, Latin American nations must act with new urgency to combat global climate change. In a blow to the Paris Agreement, Trump’s move sends a message that the U.S. federal government is no longer committed to curbing greenhouse gas emissions. The United States, Syria, and Nicaragua are now the only nations that refuse to join the historic fight against global warming. The Paris Agreement, which directs countries to set targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, was hailed as the first truly global climate deal to curb climate change. “This has huge implications for the Global South in the fight against climate change,” said Astrid Puentes, Co-Executive Director of the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense, or AIDA. “We can no longer rely on the U.S. government to set an example for climate progress. Now more than ever, it’s important that Latin American countries step up efforts to curb their greenhouse gas emissions.” Although the United States and China are the largest emitters of greenhouse gases, nine percent of total global emissions come from Latin America, according to the UN Economic Commission on Latin America and the Caribbean. “In a region with immense ecological diversity, Latin America has an opportunity to take a leadership role in protecting natural resources and communities by shaping a clean energy future without reliance on fossil fuels,” Puentes said. “Without the United States, Latin America now needs to lead the global fight against climate change, and AIDA will continue to be at the forefront of that fight.” AIDA has worked with Latin American governments to increase their capacity to secure international funding for climate projects, raised awareness that many dam reservoirs emit significant amounts of methane, built a regional effort to counter the spread of hydraulic fracturing projects, and helped to protect critical carbon sinks, among other projects. As a team of environmental and legal experts, AIDA also works to protect the human rights of people and their communities throughout Latin America. AIDA is the only regional organization in Latin America that provides free legal support to communities and organizations dedicated to protecting human rights and the environment.  Press contact: Astrid Puentes Riaño, Executive Co-Director, [email protected]

Read more
Large Dams, Accountability and Transparency

The Odebrecht Tsunami: can we restore the public trust, or just the money?

(Column originally published in El País) Corruption in Latin American and the Caribbean is no longer news. Some even consider it normal. But this too has a limit. So when we learned of the extent of corruption involved with Brazilian multinational Odebrecht, the news hit like a tsunami: the corporation not only swept away huge piles of money, it also destroyed the public trust. Now we must question whether the more than 100 infrastructure projects involved in the Odebrecht case were really in the public interest, or if they were merely an excuse to pay millions in bribes. The details of this complex and corrupt machinery came to light on December 21. That day the Department of Justice and the US Attorney’s Office published a document in which corporate executives confessed to having paid roughly $788 million in bribes to officials in 11 Latin American countries and Mozambique. According to the document, “between 2001 and 2016, Odebrecht, together with its co-conspirators, knowingly and willfully conspired and agreed with others to corruptly provide hundreds of millions of dollars… for the benefit of foreign officials, foreign political parties, foreign political party officials, and foreign political candidates… in order to obtain and retain business…” It is a confession of actions that completely betray the public trust. The executives implicated dozens of governments, including heads of state (such as Colombian President and Nobel Prize-winner Juan Manuel Santos), ministers, senators, and others who are now being investigated or have been jailed. Indignation is rampant, as are demands for justice. Although it wasn’t possible to access the complete list of projects, public information in each country accounts for the following: Argentina: gas pipelines, water purification projects, potassium extraction, and the burial of the Sarmiento railway, among others. Brazil: hundreds of projects, including extractive industries and the Belo Monte Dam, which since its planning stages has been violating human rights. Colombia: the Ruta del Sol and the navigation of the Magdalena River, the two most important engineering projects in the country. Ecuador: the Manduriacu dam and the Pacific refinery. Although the administration of Rafael Correa has stated that possible bribes occurred before 2007, the US government claims to have evidence of later bribes. Mexico: the Ethylene XXI petrochemical project (the largest in Latin America) and the Los Ramones II Norte gas pipeline. Peru: the North-South Interoceanic Highway, the Alto Piura hydroelectric project, and the Lima electric train. Dominican Republic: the Punta Catalina thermoelectric plant and the Pinalito hydroelectric plant. In all countries, the bribes involve energy or infrastructure projects that were declared essential for development by governments, international agencies, and corporations.  Yet communities and organizations have for decades denounced these same projects for abridging human rights, harming the environment, and aggravating climate change. The majority of their complaints about these projects were ignored. The Belo Monte Dam, for example, began operations despite the fact that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights requested a halt to its construction and government protection of the rights of affected indigenous communities. Requests for justice were also repressed, sometimes by the very governments that, according to the evidence, were reportedly given bribes to implement the projects. The situation is all the more serious if we consider that Latin America is the most dangerous region in the world for human rights defenders, particularly those who protect the environment and their territory. Faced with unprecedented corruption, it is vital to analyze each of the projects from the Odebrecht case to determine its true public utility. It’s likely that, in many cases, the socio-environmental costs far outweigh the benefits. In such cases, damages must be penalized. The Odebrecht case may be just the tip of the iceberg in a broader regional problem. Each State and corporation on the continent must adopt effective anti-corruption measures and re-evaluate their project planning and implementation processes. One clear lesson from this scandal is that the region needs to strengthen the independent, objective fulfillment of national and international standards for the protection of the environment and human rights. In the case of mega-projects, transparency and the participation of those affected (and those interested in protecting the public interest) must be ensured. Given that, in some cases, the investigation of corruption rests with the administrations implicated in the scandal, independent regional citizen’s oversight should be established to investigate the impacts of the mega-projects, and the best ways to compensate for damages. We must ensure, once and for all, that decision-makers are truly serving the public interest, and not their own pocketbooks. All of us citizens must contribute to making this a reality.  One thing you can do to help is support AIDA – the only regional organization of Latin American experts providing free legal support to secure the wellbeing of people, places, and the planet.

Read more
Accountability and Transparency, Climate Change

Letter to Green Climate Fund Board: Improve Decision Making

Letter signed by 70 international civil society organizations:  As members of civil society following the Green Climate Fund (GCF), we are writing to express our concern about the way the Board reached some of its most important decisions during the 14th Board Meeting (B.14). We would also like to share some thoughts on how to improve upon this process in the future. We are especially referring to the practice of “package approval” that was used to approve funding proposals and new accredited entities. Weak process. The Board approved 10 proposals worth $745 million without discussing each one separately. The Board’s assessment of each of the funding proposals should be made individually and with the utmost care, to ensure that the objectives, principles, policies, and operational modalities of the Fund are respected and complied with. Furthermore, there was no opportunity for active observers to highlight individual comments for each of the funding proposals (they could merely air some concerns during the overarching discussion of all funding proposals). The same can be said with regard to the package approval of eight accredited entities. There was no public discussion of the merits and/or shortcomings of each approved applicant entity and no possibility of civil society input. Civil society has vital contributions to make, and for our engagement to be meaningful, active observers must be given the opportunity to share important points regarding each proposal and accreditation application during Board meetings. Indeed, the Board’s way of working has actually been in conflict with the GCF’s own Governing Instrument, which states that “the Fund will operate in a transparent and accountable manner”. Approval despite clear failures of GCF policy compliance. The Board repeatedly overlooked the failure of a number of proposals to comply with GCF policies and procedures. For example, public notification for a number of projects was out of compliance with the Fund’s information disclosure policy, which requires a 120-day notification period for proposals with high social and environmental risk. Mandatory gender action plans were missing from several projects, and stakeholder consultations in some cases were highly inadequate. Yet the Board approved all of the projects with one package decision. The Board even pushed through proposals without the requisite guiding policy in place. For example, programs to be implemented via sub-projects were approved, yet the GCF does not have a policy regarding whether or not high risk sub-projects must come back to the Board for approval. We believe they should, to ensure the GCF’s accountability, and to preempt some of the serious environmental, development, and social shortcomings widely seen at other multilateral institutions that finance sub-projects via financial intermediaries. Precedent-setting. While the Board stated that “the approach taken to approving funding proposals at B.14 does not constitute a precedent,” we are concerned that, at this point, the Board has taken such an approach multiple times. Steps to put a stop to these modalities becoming the de facto modus operandi must be taken in the lead up to B.15, including: Timely public disclosure on the GCF’s own website that, at minimum, follows GCF rules (i.e. 120 days for ESIAs for high risk funding proposals, 30 days for medium risk, and three weeks prior to board meetings for all other materials). All annexes and the Secretariat’s due diligence should also be disclosed for funding proposals; Publication of applications for accreditation as soon as they are filed, as well as operationalization of formal mechanisms for third party input (from affected communities, indigenous peoples, civil society, etc.); Individual consideration of each funding proposal and each applicant for accreditation during public sessions of the Board; Opportunities to consider civil society interventions during the debate on each individual proposal, rather than at the end of agenda items; Where formal (or informal) working groups are established to consider conditions to be placed on proposals, there should be a clear process to allow the consideration of civil society feedback, at a minimum in writing, but preferably through the direct participation of the CSO active observers or their alternates; Discussions on more complex and/or controversial proposals require several rounds of debate. In these cases, civil society observers should be given the opportunity to make further interventions responding to new proposals, conditions and amendments. Civil society observers are committed to working with the Board to improve the accountability and transparency of Board decisions, in particular on funding and accreditation approvals. As a learning institution, the GCF needs to take the time to look at the merits of individual proposals and applicants in order to clearly elaborate how they can support the paradigm shift in recipient countries. We therefore urge the Board to better prioritize valuable time during the upcoming Board meetings to allow for meaningful discussions.

Read more
Large Dams, Accountability and Transparency, Human Rights

Belo Monte: Fueling Our Fight for Justice

By María José Veramendi Villa Even as the turbines of the Belo Monte Dam have begun turning, the fight for justice continues. The ongoing operation of the world’s third largest dam—corrupt and careless as it is—cannot stop us. In fact, each new allegation of corruption and abuse only fuels our desire for justice for those who have been affected by the dam. And our most important battle is now strongly underway: our case before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, which opened for processing at the close of last year.  In it, we’re working to hold Brazil accountable for the countless human rights violations that have been committed in the name of the Belo Monte dam: the absence of consultation with and free, prior and informed consent of indigenous communities; the lack of adequate assessment of environmental and social impacts; forced displacement; and severe violations to the rights of indigenous peoples, riverine communities and residents of Altamira. We’re in the process of getting the case admitted before the Commission, so they can establish—as an independent, international body—if these violations occurred and whether the State must respond for them. As part of the process, Brazil had to respond to our allegations before the Commission. We received their response on August 9 and have just submitted our legal submission to counter their claims.  We need to ensure Commission understands the importance of their role in investigating the human rights abuses that have been suffered due to Belo Monte. Even as I write this, the State and dam operators continue to blatantly disregard the human rights of the people of the Xingu River basin, living in the dam’s shadow. On September 1, for instance, the dam’s operating license was suspended yet again because sanitation systems in the city of Altamira—a legal obligation operators were required to meet long ago—were never installed. Wastewater still floods the streets of Altamira, and threatens to turn Belo Monte’s reservoir into a stagnant pool of sewage. Unfortunately, as with many legal decisions attempting to protect the rights of those affected, the suspension was overturned a few weeks later. It’s clear the forces behind Belo Monte have no respect for the environment in which they’re working, and even less for the local people who depend upon the river and forests for their survival. Many of the people we represent live in the neighborhoods of Altamira, and are exposed to raw sewage. Those who live outside the city have been displaced from their land, cut off from their primary water source, or have had their way of life destroyed.  We must ensure the Brazilian State is held accountable for the immense environmental and social damage the dam has caused. Rest assured, we won’t stop until we achieve justice for the people of the Xingú.

Read more
Accountability and Transparency

Ombudsman finds the IFC failed to comply with its investment standards in Colombia

The office of the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman found that the International Finance Corporation cannot guarantee that the Angostura mine will not have impacts on the environment. Washington/Ottawa/Bogotá/Ámsterdam. The office of the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO) has issued its final report on the complaint brought against the International Finance Corporation's (IFC) investment in Eco Oro Minerals’ Angostura mine in the high-altitude wetlands – known as páramos – of Santurbán, Colombia. The office warned that the corporation has not met all the standards required of its investments, including an assessment of potential impacts on biodiversity. The investigation was triggered by a complaint filed by the Comité por la Defensa del Agua y el Páramo de Santurbán (Committee for the Defense of Water and the Paramo de Santurban), with the support of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), the Center for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO), the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) and MiningWatch Canada. "The biodiversity of Santurbán is critical to ensuring our water supply. Therefore, any threat to its biodiversity affects the water resources of the entire metropolitan area of Bucaramanga," said Alix Mancilla, of the Santurbán Committee. The report also states that the IFC failed to assess the impacts of the entire mining project, and instead only concentrated on the impacts of the exploration stage, despite the fact that it justifies its investment on the basis of the supposed benefits that the eventual mine would bring. The CAO found that the "potential to comply with IFC’s environmental and social standards was uncertain and potentially challenging" during the extraction phase. In its conclusion, the Ombudsman points out that "one of the stated purposes of the IFC's investment was to develop the studies necessary to determine whether the project could comply with IFC's [performance standards]. " However, the company did not complete the required studies, including an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment, a biodiversity baseline study, and critical habitat assessments. Despite repeated lack of compliance by the client, the CAO found that the "IFC has not pursued a remedy, but has made subsequent investments in the company." "If the purpose of IFC's investment was to determine the viability of the project, there is no justification for the lack of studies – studies that are required to make an investment decision. You cannot greenlight a project in such a critical region for the population of Bucaramanga without assessing its actual consequences," declared Carla Garcia Zendejas of CIEL. The IFC's response to the Ombudsman’s report did not acknowledge any wrongdoing or make commitments to address its findings. Instead, the IFC merely reiterated its justification for investing in the project, claiming that the eventual mine will bring employment and revenue. The response is silent regarding its client's intent to file an investment dispute under the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. "It is very serious that despite failures in the risk assessment, the IFC has continued to invest in the Angostura mining project," added Kris Genovese, from SOMO. “It is disappointing, but not surprising, that the IFC has failed once again to respond to the findings of a CAO investigation.”  AIDA attorney Carlos Lozano Acosta explained that “the project is illegal; that’s why its license was denied in 2011, and why the Constitutional Court ratified the prohibition of mining in páramos. It worries us that the IFC invested in a company whose project, from the beginning, was not viable, and who would file an international lawsuit against Colombia, one of the member states of the World Bank.” The report reveals that the IFC has an explicit policy of investing in junior mining companies with limited capacity to manage environmental and social issues, in countries where the regulatory framework is weak or not enforced. "It is time for the IFC to withdraw its investment in Eco Oro and stop investing in junior mining companies, as has been done in Colombia and elsewhere, knowing the serious social and environmental damage this entails and the context of impunity in which these companies are operating," stated Jen Moore of MiningWatch. "As communities affected by the mine, we will continue challenging the project in court, and we will use all legal means at our disposal to stop it, as we have done so far," affirmed Elizabeth Martinez from the Committee for Santurban. Currently, Colombia's Constitutional Court is considering a legal action filed by the Santurbán Committee with support from AIDA, concerning the lack of citizen participation in the demarcation of the wetland. A decision is expected soon. The IFC is the private-sector lending arm of the World Bank Group. The CAO is an independent accountability mechanism that receives complaints from people who may be affected by IFC investment projects.   The CAO’s report and communiqué, including the IFC’s response can be found here: Communiqué: http://www.cao-ombudsman.org/cases/document-links/documents/CAOCommuniqueEcoOroSummaryofFindingsAugust252016.pdf Report: http://www.cao-ombudsman.org/cases/document-links/documents/CAOComplianceInvestigationReportonIFCinvestmentinEcoOroMinerals-English.pdf Response by the IFC: http://www.cao-ombudsman.org/cases/document-links/documents/EcoOro-IFCManagementResponsetoCAOInvestigationReport-5August2016.pdf   

Read more
Indigenous Rights, Accountability and Transparency

Indigenous People of the Americas Have New Hope for Justice

By Astrid Puentes Riaño (text originally published in Animal Político) June 15 was a historic day. After 17 years of negotiations, the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was approved. That’s cause for celebration. The Declaration brings advances on many fronts. It means States must commit to respecting the rights of indigenous peoples, including their rights to land, territory, and a healthy environment. It means respecting sustainable development. It recognizes that violence against indigenous women “prevents and nullifies the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.” And it reinforces the rights of indigenous peoples to participation; to prior consultation; and to free, prior, and informed consent – particularly when they’re faced with harm to their territories.  The need for effective justice As the Organization of American States was approving the Declaration, activists held a Global Day of Action to call for justice for Berta Cáceres, the Honduran indigenous rights defender assassinated on March 3. These simultaneous events demonstrate the lack of effective justice in the region. Latin America yearns for justice, particularly with regard to human rights violations caused by extractive, energy, tourism, and infrastructure projects. The events also highlight the urgent need to put declarations and international obligations into practice. Berta’s death was foreshadowed. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights asked the Honduran government to take precautionary measures to protect her life, which the government did not do. Two days after her death, the Commission also requested protective measures for the organization she led, the Civic Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras (COPINH). Just days later, however, Nelson García, another of the organization’s members, was assassinated. The primary demand on the Global Day of Action was to create a commission of independent experts to investigate the murders and to help uncover the truth. The assassinations of Berta and Nelson are not exceptions. More than 100 people dedicated to protecting their lands, forests, and rivers have been murdered in Honduras since 2010. And it’s not only there. Brazil, Colombia, Nicaragua, and Peru are four of the five most violent countries in the world for environmental defenders (alongside the Philippines). 2015 has been widely recognized as “the worst year on record” for those who defend the Earth. Towards real development Berta dedicated her life to defending rivers. At the time of her death, she was working to save her people’s territory from being flooded by the Agua Zarca Dam on the Gualquarque River. Indigenous communities there have taken stands against more than 50 extractive and energy projects affecting their land, the majority of which violate national and international law. Her case has thrust into the spotlight the realities of development in Latin America. Although governments—with the help of international financial institutions, national banks, and foreign investors—promote extractive, energy, tourism, and infrastructure projects as essential to development and poverty alleviation, the reality is quite different. Systematically, these projects are built in violation of laws and without adequate planning or evaluation of impacts on the environment and human rights. Sustainable alternatives are rarely evaluated at all. In fact, many of the projects pushed through in Latin America would not be viable in developed countries, where better technologies and safeguards are the norm. Special Rapporteurs to the United Nations have been calling attention to this issue for years. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights also recognized it in a recent report on extractive industries and their impacts on tribal and indigenous peoples. Unfortunately, the Commission is undergoing an unprecedented financial crisis because States aren’t making sufficient contributions. Some have delayed or withdrawn funding because of conflicts over the Commission’s rulings on extractive and energy projects in their territories. The clearest example can be found in Brazil, which reacted to the Commission’s call to suspend Belo Monte Dam construction by withdrawing its ambassador, initiating a thorough review of the Commission, and freezing financial contributions. Brazil has yet to re-establish a regular contribution to the body. Hope and opportunity For all these reasons, approval of the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is encouraging news. It’s essential that the rights and obligations it contains be upheld immediately. Starting with Berta’s case, States must demonstrate their seriousness. They must show, through action, that they recognize the problems facing the region; that they’re reaching for truth and justice; and that they favor real development to uplift their people. Latin America has a historic opportunity. Governments can finally join the 21st Century by respecting the rule of law, practicing what they preach, and promoting development that cares for our natural resources and those who most intimately depend on them. 

Read more
Accountability and Transparency, Human Rights

Activist Deaths Demand Accountability

Last year 185 environmental activists were murdered world-wide, two-thirds from Latin America, according to Global Witness. Of the ten most dangerous countries in the world for environmental defenders, seven are in Latin America. The brave activists we lost were killed for resisting mines, dams, and other destructive industrial projects. Now, more than ever, we must demand accountability. For the loss to the environment, the loss of indigenous cultures, the loss of human rights. That just got harder. On May 23 the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights announced a severe financial crisis leading to “suspension of [scheduled] hearings and imminent layoff of nearly half of its staff.”  While the Commission has long been short on funds, this is the worst financial crisis it has ever seen. The Commission depends on funding from the Organization of American States (OAS), governments in the Americas and Europe, organizations, and foundations. Nearly all governments have decreased or failed to honor their financial commitments. The financial crisis demonstrates that our work, and the work of colleagues, communities, and movements, is having an impact. The Commission has produced important decisions in cases involving indigenous and community rights, land and environmental protection, and destructive development projects. For a few years countries have complained that the Commission is going beyond its mandate in cases involving development projects. But of course, when development projects violate human rights, they clearly fall within the purview of the Inter-American Human Rights System. The Belo Monte Dam case provides clear evidence that this manufactured crisis is a result of our effectiveness. In 2011 the Commission granted the precautionary measures our colleagues and we requested on behalf of affected indigenous communities. Brazil reacted by immediately withdrawing its ambassador to the OAS and by withholding funding for the rest of the year. A new ambassador did not return until 2015 and Brazil’s payments haven’t normalized since. In addition, after the precautionary measures were issued Brazil started an aggressive process to “reform” the Commission that ended by weakening its power. At AIDA we have analyzed how the crisis affects our cases before the Commission; how it affects future cases that need international attention; and how it affects human rights protection in the Americas. ​ Current cases will likely be delayed. Our case on toxic poisoning in La Oroya, Peru is already seriously delayed. The Commission has promised to release a report on the merits so the case can be taken to the next level, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. We have been told the Commission will approve the report, which has been completed, this year—despite losing 40% of its staff. This remains to be seen. Of course, we have contacted the Commission and stressed the importance of advancing the case. Informally, some judges from the Inter-American Court have indicated their eagerness to receive the case. Processing the Belo Monte case has only just started, after pending four years at the Commission. Strong political pressure from Brazil will likely delay it further. But political pressure on Brazil and the Commission can help the case move faster. As Belo Monte is linked to the biggest corruption scandal in Brazil, maybe the Commission will understand how relevant it is to advance the case. We will continue advocating for priority processing. New cases require further evaluation. We plan to bring at least one new case to the Commission soon, because unless we meet a deadline in a few weeks, the statute of limitations will prevent its consideration. All domestic remedies have been pursued; the Commission represents the last chance for justice. Despite the uncertainties of the current situation, it is important to preserve our clients’ rights in case the Commission’s funding is brought back to an adequate level. In other cases, we are looking for different ways to achieve justice. For example, we are exploring more than ever the use of national courts and national authorities. In addition, we are looking for new ways to engage financial institutions to prevent funding of projects that harm the environment and human rights. We are working with other organizations to develop response strategies. One of our attorneys, Rodrigo Sales, a Brazilian lawyer, recently represented AIDA at the General Assembly of the OAS. He advocated for human rights solutions in the region, among other issues. We consider collaboration and cooperation among the human rights and environmental communities to be essential. We need to stand together, showing governments and the public that human rights and the Commission are of vital importance.  The financial crisis of the Commission—an international entity for hearing and resolving hemispheric human rights concerns—is an urgent issue that requires common understanding, thinking, strategizing, and acting. AIDA is working to make this happen.

Read more