Freshwater Sources

Fracking, Freshwater Sources, Toxic Pollution

In regressive decision, high court endorses fracking in Colombia

Bogotá, Colombia. Colombia’s highest administrative court, the Council of State, on Thursday ruled against a lawsuit that sought to nullify the government’s regulation of fracking, effectively endorsing the controversial technique’s implementation in the Andean nation. The nullity lawsuit was filed by the Public Interest Law Clinic of the Universidad del Norte—which was jointly advised by AIDA, Corporación Podion, and the legal clinics of Universidad Javeriana and Universidad de los Andes—in an attempt to challenge the legality of the rules that would allow for fracking operations in the country, found in 2013’s Decree 3004 and 2014’s Resolution 90341. This decision means the suspension of Colombia’s judicial moratorium on fracking, which has been in place since 2018, when the when the Council preventively suspended the rules based on the precautionary principle and due to the lack of certainty about the risks of irreversible damage that the technique implies for the environment, climate and public health. Fracking has been assessed by national and international academics and scientists as an experimental technique that threatens air, water, human health, democratic participation, social fabric and culture, traditional knowledge systems, biodiversity and, in the long term, economic, seismic and climatic stability. In addition, it creates atmospheric pollution due to the emission of methane—a potent gas whose warming potential is 84 to 87 times greater than carbon dioxide on a 20-year scale. While the Council of State's ruling ratifies the government's regulations and lifts the moratorium, it does not exonerate national and local authorities from protecting the environment and respecting the fundamental rights of the population as they consolidate the mining and energy policy. Legal experts who brought the case before the Court respond to the ruling:   "In Latin America and around the world, many countries have banned fracking because of its impacts on the environment and on the protection of human rights. The ruling of Colombia’s Council of State is regressive and goes against international advances on environmental, climate and human rights issues.” - Yeny Rodríguez, attorney with the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA)   "The Council of State has issued a decision contrary to the facts proven in the litigation. They have ignored the survey conducted by the National University of Colombia, the report of the expert commission, the concept of the Attorney General's Office, and the rest of the documentary evidence and scientific texts that clearly demonstrated the need to prohibit this technique under the precautionary principle. In addition, the ruling ignores Colombia's international climate commitments and the principle of intergenerational solidarity, as it ignores the fundamental rights of future generations." - Juan Pablo Sarmiento, plaintiff’s attorney in the case.   “The Council of State lost a great opportunity to strengthen, through the courts, a regulation that many experts considered too weak to protect the environment and public health. Its now is in the hands of the national government and the legislature to guarantee society the protection of the precautionary principle and democratic participation in environmental matters" - Juan Felipe García, attorney with the Law and Territory Clinic of the Universidad Javeriana   “The decision of the highest administrative court in the country is not an open invitation to carry out fracking in Colombia. The government must fully guarantee the right to participation and the voice of communities in decision-making about projects that may generate environmental impacts in their territories, as well as guarantee the safety and protection of environmental leaders who defend their territories". - Silvia Quintero, legal advisor to the Environmental and Public Health Legal Clinic of the Universidad de Los Andes   “The lifting of the judicial moratorium on fracking leaves open the possibility of moving forward with such projects whose contracts were previously suspended. It’s necessary that fracking have a social license because several regions of the country have been considered as potential areas for its implementation." - Lizeth Gómez, attorney with Corporación Podion Contactos de prensa: Juan Pablo Sarmiento, [email protected], +573005514583 Yeny Rodríguez, AIDA, [email protected], +573107787601 Juan Felipe García, Clínica en Derecho y Territorio de la Universidad Javeriana, [email protected], +573125588889 Lizeth Gómez, PODION, [email protected], +573176430036  

Read more
Fracking, Indigenous Rights, Freshwater Sources

Court suspends fracking pilot projects, reaffirms right to prior consultation in Colombia

A Colombian judge on Thursday suspended the environmental license for the Kalé fracking pilot project and the environmental permitting process for the Platero fracking pilot project—both located in the municipality of Puerto Wilches, Santander—until the consultation processes with the communities of the region are completed. The court ruling responds to an injunction filed by the Afro-Colombian communities of Puerto Wilches (AFROWILCHES), the Podion Corporation, the José Alvear Restrepo Lawyers Collective, and the Colombia Free of Fracking Alliance, to which AIDA provides legal support. For AIDA, the suspension of the projects represents a victory for the communities of the Magdalena Medio. It acknowledges that fracking cannot advance in the country without their real and effective participation, without a social license, and in a context of threats against the lives of defenders who oppose this technique. "The court decision sends a powerful warning message to other Latin American nations,” said Yeny Rodríguez, AIDA attorney. “Governments currently advancing fracking must respect the principles of environmental democracy, especially since this is a technique and an industry that significantly impacts the environment and public health." "While the guarantee of the right to participation and prior consultation is non-negotiable, fracking continues to be a widely questioned technique, which has been banned worldwide due to the lack of scientific certainty about its possible risks and the very high socio-environmental costs it has caused in the countries that already employ it," she explained. There has been a judicial moratorium on the development of commercial fracking in Colombia since November 2018, when the Council of State declared its provisional suspension at the national level. That decision is based on the precautionary principle, since the regulation of fracking does not contemplate the environmental risks and impacts that its application could cause. A final ruling from the Council of State on the fracking regulation is expected in the coming months. In addition, a second appeal for legal protection filed by more than 10 organizations of fishermen, farmers, women and youth of Puerto Wilches is being considered based on the violation of the right to public participation in the implementation of fracking pilot projects there. The appeal was denied in the first instance, but a favorable ruling is expected in the second. The Colombian Constitutional Court will hear of the decisions of these two judicial proceedings. That court and the Council of State will have the final word on the future of fracking’s implementation in the country. The judges of Colombia, and those across the region, have the power and the opportunity to positively transform development models that promote activities like fracking while systematically damaging the environment and violating human rights. Press contact: Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, [email protected], +5215570522107  

Read more
Freshwater Sources, Toxic Pollution, Climate Change

In Peru, a High Court’s Opportunity to Combat Oil Spills in the Amazon

In 2014, 2500 barrels of oil flowing through the Norperuano Pipeline in the heart of the Amazon leaked in the Cuninico River. For native communities, the consequences of the spill persist to this day, affecting the life and integrity of the people of San Francisco, Nueva Esperanza, Cuninico and Santa Rosa, who are still struggling to find clean water to grow their crops. In 2018, accompanied by the Instituto de Defensa Legal, they filed an injunction (known as an amparo in Peruvian courts) in an effort to prevent further spills, calling for the maintenance of the Norperuano Pipeline. Currently, their case is before the Constitutional Court of Peru, which has an unprecedented opportunity to stop oil spills in the Peruvian Amazon and, with them, prevent the systematic violation of the rights of the indigenous peoples who live there. The Court could do both by ruling in the favor of the petitioners and ordering state-owned oil company Petroperu to perform maintenance on the pipeline. AIDA supported the case with an amicus brief detailing the international obligation of the Peruvian state to guarantee the adoption of the necessary measures—administrative, legal, political and cultural—to protect the rights to a dignified life and a healthy environment. A systematic problem with oil infrastructure Sadly, what happened in the Cuninico basin is not a one-time occurrence; it is a systematic problem facing oil infrastructure in the Amazon. Oil spills in the Peruvian Amazon are putting entire families and communities at risk: compromising food security, contaminating ecosystems, and affecting the cosmovision and ways of life of the Amazonian peoples. According to The Shadow of Oil, an OXFAM report from 2020, 65 percent of the 474 spills that occurred in Amazonian oil fields and from the Norperuvian Pipeline between 2000 and 2019—affecting the territory of 41 indigenous communities—were due to pipeline corrosion and operational failures; only 28 percent were caused by third parties. Complementary data from the Organismo de Evaluación y Fiscalización Ambiental and the Organismo Supervisor de la Inversión en Energía y Minería—both public entities—confirm that, for the most part, oil spills derive mainly from a lack of supervision and oversight by the State and the absence of due diligence by the companies. It’s evident that the responsibility for the vast majority of spills lies with the operating companies.  This has generated a structural scenario of threats and violations to the human and environmental rights of Peru’s ancestral populations. Broader causes of the continuous oil spills in Peru include a dependence on the extraction of fossil fuels, the lack of maintenance of facilities, institutional weakness, and gaps in corporate responsibility. Strategic litigation: a way forward The courts in the region have been, on many occasions, valuable actors in the protection of the right to a healthy environment and human rights more broadly. In Colombia, courts have prevented the advancement of several projects that were implemented without prior consultation, affecting the rights of indigenous peoples. In Mexico, courts have recognized the rights of indigenous communities to participate in the use and administration of minerals in the subsoil of their territory. In Ecuador, the Constitutional Court (Ecuador's highest court) ordered the Ministry of Environment to remedy the damages caused by palm oil plantations and to take measures to control and mitigate future and potential damages. Now it’s the turn of Peru’s Constitutional Court to defend these rights by moving to protect the Amazon from future oil spills. Undoubtedly, a positive decision would be an important regional precedent for the protection of the Amazon, an indispensable ecosystem. The Amazon region is majestic. Stretching over 2.7 million square miles, it is the largest tropical forest on the planet and is home to at least 10 percent of known biodiversity, much of it endemic. Since ancestral times, it has been home to more than 470 indigenous peoples, quilombolos and traditional communities; among its trees and rivers you can hear more than 86 languages and 650 different dialects. The Amazon is a vital ecosystem in times of climate crisis. It functions as a large carbon sink that stores between 90 and 140 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide, one of the most important greenhouse gases that, if released, would further accelerate climate change. What happened in Peru highlights the importance of strategic litigation to preserve the Amazon as a key ecosystem to confront climate crisis, and to defend the peoples that call it home.  

Read more
Freshwater Sources, Climate Change, Human Rights

What you should know about the trinational alert to save the Pantanal from wildfires

In recent years, fires have seriously damaged and endangered the largest freshwater wetland in the world, the Pantanal, which sits at the shared border of Brazil, Bolivia and Paraguay. Given the urgency of the situation, civil society organizations alerted the Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention, the intergovernmental treaty for the protection of wetlands, about the damages to the Pantanal and requested its support in the search for solutions. In the current context of climate crisis, the protection of key ecosystems like wetlands and the curbing of large carbon dioxide emissions caused by forest fires is an urgent task. Here's what you need to know about the crisis facing the Pantanal wetlands and recent efforts to bring about their recovery through transboundary cooperation.   An epicenter of biodiversity at risk In its nearly 20 million hectares, the Pantanal is home to species of at least 3,500 plants, 600 birds, 150 mammals, 175 reptiles, 40 amphibians and 300 freshwater fish. Some of these species are endangered in other regions. It is home to the highest concentration of jaguars and caimans in the Americas. The destructive force of fire In 2019 and 2020, the Pantanal burned at an unprecedented rate. In 2020, fires devastated 4 million 300 thousand hectares of the Pantanal region, the highest number recorded since 1998. That same year, 100 percent of Brazil's Pantanal Matogrossense National Park burned. Fires there have become a transboundary problem. Aggravating the global climate crisis In addition to the loss of forests, the death of animals and the direct impact on the health and livelihoods of local communities, fires in the Pantanal aggravate the climate crisis. A study published by the Brazilian Academy of Sciences estimates that the 2020 fires in the Pantanal region of that country released around 115 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, more than 20 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions generated in Colombia during that same year. International alert for urgent measures On February 2, World Wetlands Day, AIDA—together with the Center for Biological Diversity and Ecologia e Ação (ECOA)—requested the Ramsar Convention Secretariat to send an advisory mission to six Pantanal wetlands located in Bolivia, Brazil and Paraguay. The organizations also requested that the sites, considered internationally important under the treaty, be inscribed on the Montreux Record, the global list of wetlands at serious risk. They urged the three governments to implement measures to preserve the Pantanal as a transboundary ecosystem. Specialized support for rescue "The advisory mission consists of a visit by international experts who would provide highly specialized recommendations to Brazil, Bolivia and Paraguay to overcome the conditions that generate risk for the conservation and wise use of the Pantanal, as well as to develop innovative management and protection measures," explained AIDA attorney Claudia Velarde. The inscription of the sites on the Montreux Record implies financial assistance, as well as support and technical advice, for the recovery of the Pantanal in the three countries. In July 2021, in the Brazilian state of Mato Grosso alone, the burned area of the Pantanal was five times larger than that of São Paulo. With appropriate and timely actions, it may be possible to prevent the degradation of the ecosystem from recurring in June and July of this year, when forest fires season begins. The alert represents an important opportunity for the countries that share the Pantanal to manage its ecological wealth in a collaborative and sustainable manner, joining efforts for its preservation.  

Read more
Large Dams, Freshwater Sources, Accountability and Transparency

IDB must guaranty a responsible exit from the Hidroituango project

Ongoing investigation of the project continues regardless of early repayment of loan​. The IDB Group concluded the loan for Hidroituango prematurely as they face uncertainty regarding project initiating operations. The investigation process regarding non-compliance with IDB policies in Hidroituango continues, regardless of the early termination of the loan. The construction of the Hidroituango dam, a project that has created a humanitarian and environmental crisis without precedent in Colombia, was financed by IDB Invest, the private lending arm of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), which invested millions of dollars in the hydroelectric project and facilitated the investment of a billion additional dollars from other international development banks. The Office of the Transparency Hub of IDB Invest informed Movimiento Ríos Vivos (MRV) -which represents communities affected by HidroItuango - that the bank concluded its involvement in the project after receiving the advance repayment of funds from Empresas Públicas de Medellin (EPM). Further, it informed that the compliance investigation process currently underway at the Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism (MICI) to assess compliance with IDB policies will continue, separate from the exit from the project by IDB. Regarding the communication sent by IDB Invest to MRV, the movement and accompanying international organizations, the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), stated the following: First, the undersigned organizations maintain that the continuation of the complaint before the MICI demonstrates a respect for the integrity and independence of the accountability mechanism and a commitment to respond to the concerns of communities affected by IDB financed projects. Furthermore, we would underline that the fact the IDB has concluded its involvement in the project, resulting from a voluntary repayment due to the uncertainty of reaching certain project milestones, does not imply the absence or the removal of the investment. Much to the contrary, the prepayment by EPM to the IDB Group demonstrates that the IDB effectively disbursed funds and financed the project, and that Hidroituango is an IDB branded project. Consequently, we believe that it is correct for the MICI, the accountability mechanism in this case, to continue its investigative functions, and that the Board and management of the Bank remain committed to the process and its findings. Secondly, as has been set forth by the MICI in recent reports recognizing the lack of compliance with environmental and social safeguards by the bank, such as the case of the San Mateo and San Andres hydroelectric projects in the microregion of Yich K’isis in Guatemala, “in case of exit from the Projects, IDB Invest should make the necessary provisions to ensure a responsible exit from the Operations”. We are confident that the payment of the debt by EPM to the IDB opens up a historic possibility for the bank to conclude its involvement in a responsible way, by creating an Exit Plan in participation with communities which allows for the restoration of affected livelihoods, thereby legitimizing the bank as a responsible international finance institution. This possibility brings hope to the MRV communities affected by the Hidroituango project, who have called for the end of the investment by the IDB and its responsible exit for years. Thirdly, the undersigned organizations expect the IDB to fulfill its commitment to transparency in its operations, guaranteeing the principle of maximum access to project information, in a straightforward and comprehensive manner, under the terms established in the bank’s access to information policy. It is under these terms that we will be requesting meetings with the Board of the IDB in the near future. Today the IDB has an opportunity to fulfill its commitment to maintain high standards of integrity, transparency and accountability within its operations not only in Colombia but throughout Latin America. For this reason, we insist on the need for i) decision-making to be more transparent about the remaining IDB Group investments or loans which currently finance this project, both from its public and private lending arm, as was set forth in the petition sent on December 6th, 2021, ii) that a responsible, effective and participatory exit plan be built with communities. Press contacts: Milena Florez, Movimiento Ríos Vivos (MRV), [email protected], +57 319 2131656 Carla García Zendejas, CIEL, [email protected], +1 202 374 2550 Yeny Rodríguez Junco, AIDA, [email protected], +57 310 7787 601  

Read more
Indigenous Rights, Freshwater Sources, Climate Change

In-danger designation requested for Pantanal wetlands in Brazil, Bolivia and Paraguay

On World Wetlands Day, advocates urged the Ramsar Convention Secretariat to conduct an advisory visit to wetlands severely affected by fires, and for the governments of the three countries to inscribe the sites on the global list of wetlands at risk of disappearing.   Gland, Switzerland -- Civil society organizations sent an urgent alert to the Ramsar Convention today requesting a full assessment of damage caused by recent fires in the Pantanal, the world’s largest tropical wetland, a natural area shared between Brazil, Bolivia and Paraguay. The groups requested that the Secretariat conduct an advisory mission to analyze the state of six wetlands, which the Convention has recognized as being sites of international importance, and for the wetlands to be included on the Montreux Record, a list of the world’s most at-risk wetlands. The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), the Center for Biological Diversity and Ecologia e Ação (ECOA) sent the alert on World Wetlands Day. They also urged the three governments to urgently implement measures to preserve the Pantanal as a transboundary ecosystem. The Ramsar sites addressed in the request are the Bolivian Pantanal; the Reserva Particular do Patrimonio Natural SESC Pantanal, the Reserva Particular do Patrimonio Natural Fazenda Rio Negro, the Pantanal Matogrosense National Park and the Taiamã Ecological Station in Brazil; as well as the Rio Negro National Park in Paraguay. "A Ramsar in-danger designation is crucial to combating the Pantanal’s huge and unprecedented fires, which now threaten Bolivia, Brazil and Paraguay," said Alejandro Olivera, a senior scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity. "Public policies that promote agriculture and livestock expansion and allow burning within the Pantanal have combined with limited cross-border collaboration to create a tinderbox. Ecosystem-damaging fires will continue without stronger commitments to protect these critical wetland habitats." In 2020, fires devastated 4.3 million hectares of the Pantanal region, the highest number since monitoring began in 1998; the number of fires burning in the area was 508% more than average. That same year, fires burned 100 percent of the Pantanal National Park Matogrossense. At least 10 million animals died in just three months. Unusually large fires continued in July 2021. "We are asking the States to comply with the obligations acquired before the Convention, generating coherent mechanisms and implementing policies and norms to protect the Pantanal," explained AIDA attorney Claudia Velarde. "An advisory mission to the six Ramsar sites could provide specialized assistance to the Brazilian, Bolivian and Paraguayan governments to overcome the conditions that pose risks to the conservation and wise use of this key wetland.” Likewise, the inscription of the sites on the Montreux Record can result in economic aid, support and technical advice, for the recovery of the Pantanal in the three countries. "We sent an urgent alert for Bolivia, Brazil and Paraguay to focus on the Pantanal as the world's largest transboundary freshwater wetland," said Andre Siqueira, President Director of ECOA. "The Ramsar Convention cannot achieve its objectives if the ecosystems it protects are significantly damaged by the continued use of fire, agribusiness and the lack of adequate resources to fight fires." The biodiversity and ecological richness of the Pantanal is incalculable. At least 3,500 species of plants, about 600 birds, 150 mammals, 175 reptiles, 40 amphibians and 300 freshwater fish inhabit the biome. Many are in danger of extinction in other regions, such as the tuyuyú and the jaguar, the marsh deer, the giant otter and the macaw, all emblematic species of the biome. The Pantanal is home to the highest concentration of species such as the jaguar and the caiman. press contacts: Alejandro Olivera (Mexico), Center for Biological Diversity, +52 612 1040604, [email protected] Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, +521 5570522107, [email protected] André Luiz Siqueira (Brazil), ECOA, +55 67 33243230, [email protected]    

Read more
Indigenous Rights, Freshwater Sources, Accountability and Transparency

Three advances for climate and environmental justice in 2021

In the face of increasing environmental degradation and the climate crisis, the strength of the collective struggle shows that it’s possible to ensure a healthy environment and a sustainable future for all people. This year, AIDA made important advances on that path, hand-in-hand with communities and allies in the region. The stories below tell of achievements that bring us closer to the environmental and climate justice we urgently need and for which we work every day. They are the stories that inspire us to continue working for the future.   1. Mayan women pave the way for responsible financing In Guatemala, under our guidance and with the support of local and international allies, the struggle of the Mayan women of Ixquisis to defend their water and territory has made history. Following a complaint against the large dams being implemented in their territory, the Inter-American Development Bank’s accountability office recognized the damage the dams caused and, for the first time, acknowledged the possibility of a responsible withdrawal of its investment. leARN MORE 2. Court ruling upholds the preservation of natural protected areas The intention of large real estate developers to dismantle the Yum Balam protected area for flora and fauna in the Mexican Caribbean has hit a wall. Mexico's Supreme Court set a key legal precedent by determining that the management program, fundamental to the sustainable use of the site, is legal. AIDA helped defend Yum Balam in court and, years earlier, our attorneys helped build the management program. LEARN MORE 3. International support reaches high-Andean lakes in Bolivia Together with local communities and organizations, AIDA requested international technical support for the recovery of lakes Poopó and Uru Uru in the Bolivian highlands, which was finally formalized by the government. This support, scheduled for next year, is vital for the recuperation of these ecosystems, life-support systems for biodiversity and the indigenous and peasant communities in the area. learn more   Read these stories and much more about this year's journey in our 2021 Annual Report!  

Read more
Large Dams, Indigenous Rights, Freshwater Sources

The day that the indigenous struggle bore fruit in Guatemala

September 22, 2021 will be an iconic date for the men and women of the micro-region of Yich K'isis (Ixquisis), Guatemala, whose lives were abruptly changed by the construction of the San Mateo and San Andres hydroelectric dams, financed by IDB Invest. On that day, the IDB Group's Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism (MICI) upheld most of their claims, contained in the complaint they filed three years ago. Their final report acknowledges that the bank failed to verify the information about the affected population provided by the company responsible for the projects, which ignored the presence of indigenous peoples in the area. It also points out the failure to consider the differentiated impacts that women would experience in any of the project implementation phases, overlooking the role that the local rivers play in their daily lives and in their ways of inhabiting the territory. On the environmental issue, essential to indigenous peoples' ways of life, MICI also establishes non-compliance, recognizing that "IDB Invest did not ensure that the projects properly identified and delimited critical habitats and internationally recognized zones, nor that risks and impacts were established." In terms of access to information for the communities, the bank "failed to comply with its own operational policies, as no meaningful consultation with the communities took place in the development of the projects," the document reads. The indigenous men and women of Ixquisis see the report as recognition of what they’ve been denouncing for years. Along with its conclusions, MICI also makes a series of recommendations aimed at correcting the mistakes made by the bank in the San Mateo and San Andres projects, as well as avoiding repeating them in other cases. In its last recommendation, the accountability mechanism establishes, for the first time in the IDB's history, the possibility for the bank to responsibly withdraw from projects it finances. For the communities of Ixquisis, this recommendation represents the best hope for the restoration of their lives, abruptly transformed by the arrival of the projects. Indeed, ever since the complaint process began, the communities have been demanding the cessation of project funding. They consider it unsustainable that projects that fail to recognize their existence, and cause so much damage to their territory, some of it irreparable, should be financed by an international institution whose main mandate is to promote development. In the scenarios in which they were able to express their feelings to bank and MICI officials, their request was heard: the bank cannot continue financing projects that have impacted their lives in such severe and unjust ways, and its exit must be responsible. This means that the bank’s withdrawal must be based on a plan built with the effective participation of the communities and must contemplate all the damages caused in relation to social dynamics, the increased conflict in the region, the failure to acknowledge the existence of indigenous peoples and their rights, the affects on the ancestral cultural heritage, the differentiated impacts on women, and the lack of prevention and consequent environmental degradation. The bank must now propose an action plan to comply with MICI’s report, a mission that is undoubtedly transcendental. The bank now has the historic opportunity to correct its mistakes and legitimize its actions, honor its institutional mandate to promote development, respect and recognize indigenous peoples, and contribute to making the Ixquisis micro-region a place where indigenous men and women can once again develop their life in harmony with nature, and alongside their community.  

Read more
Large Dams, Indigenous Rights, Freshwater Sources

Historic recommendation paves the way for development bank to exit harmful hydroelectric projects in indigenous territory

For the first time, a case brought before the Inter-American Development Bank’s (IDB) Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism (MICI) opens the possibility for the bank to responsibly exit financing granted to hydroelectric projects, after concluding that the investment was made without acknowledging the presence of indigenous peoples, thus violating the bank’s operational policies.   Washington DC, United States. The Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism (MICI) of the Inter-American Development Bank Group concluded that, within the framework of the financing granted to the Generadora San Mateo and Generadora San Andrés hydroelectric projects—located in the Yich K'isis micro-region, territory of the Native Maya Chuj Guatemala Nation—IDB Invest ignored the presence of indigenous peoples in the area by failing to verify their existence, thus ruling out the implementation of safeguards to protect them. MICI also established that the Bank failed to comply with several of its internal policies and, based on this, opened the possibility for a responsible withdrawal of the investment. These and other findings are contained in the case’s Final Report, approved by the IDB Board of Executive Directors, in which MICI resolved the complaint filed in 2018 by the affected communities—represented by the Ancestral Plurinational Government of the Maya Q'anjob'al, Maya Chuj, Maya Akateko, Maya Popti and Mestiza Native Nations; the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA); and the International Platform Against Impunity. Of the 29 recommendations issued in the report: 10 are aimed at institutional changes to avoid non-compliance with environmental and social safeguards in other IDB Invest operations; 18 are focused on implementing specific corrective actions to redirect the San Mateo and San Andrés projects; and one of them, number 29, opens the possibility for IDB Invest to withdraw its investment from the hydroelectric plants. "In case of exit from the Projects, IDB Invest should adopt the necessary provisions to ensure a responsible exit from Operations," the report reads. "Recommendation 29 is the most consistent with the findings of the Final Report and the one that best responds to the request that the communities have made since the beginning of the process: it is unsustainable for IDB Invest to finance projects that were developed in indigenous territories while ignoring their presence," said Liliana Ávila, senior attorney at AIDA. "In an effective accountability process, the bank must be held responsible for its mistakes and remedy the damage it has caused." This represents a milestone for the region, as it is the first time that MICI has made such a consistent recommendation regarding projects under investigation. The recommendation demonstrates improvements in the bank's accountability processes, increases opportunities for communities affected by IDB Group-financed projects, and sets a precedent for better financing practices. "The report sets a precedent for accountability in the region. It puts MICI and the compliance verification phase one step closer to responding to the requests and demands of affected communities," said Carolina Juaneda, Latin America Coordinator for the Bank Information Center. "Recommendation 29 is a novel and encouraging development, as it puts the requests and demands of the communities that have been negatively affected by the projects at center stage. Although there are still many challenges to continue working on, the report undoubtedly represents a clear and powerful step toward strengthening accountability in the region." For the communities, it is through full compliance with Recommendation 29 that their primary request may finally be answered. The bank’s divestment from the dams must incorporate a responsible, participatory and comprehensive withdrawal plan that respects the good faith consultation carried out in 2009, in which the communities decided not to carry out the such projects in their territory. The plan must include: 1) recognition and restoration of social and cultural damages caused; 2) respect for the rights of indigenous peoples and recognition and restoration of the damages generated; 3) recognition and restoration of the damages generated by the differentiated impacts on women; and 4) prevention, mitigation and restoration measures from an environmental perspective. "The measures proposed in Recommendation 29 should have been part of the project planning phase. By not having considered them in its initial phase, a series of impacts and damages to the community were generated," stated Mara Bocaletti, Regional Director of the International Platform Against Impunity. "Only a responsible exit process by the investors will be able to restore the conditions of credibility towards the accountability mechanisms of international financial institutions." Another of the communities' expectations is that the IDB Group will guarantee their access to information and participation in the following phases of the process, which would allow the effective guarantee of their rights and the improvement of the bank's protection strategies. "This report is very valuable because it recognizes the impacts generated by the projects and validates the complaints we have been making for years. It is an important report not only for us, but for all indigenous peoples in Guatemala," said Lucas Marcos, local authority. "The bank's responsible withdrawal from the projects will allow us to maintain our rivers and access to water for us and our families." In addition to non-compliance with the IDB's policy on indigenous peoples, MICI concluded that the development of the San Mateo and San Andres projects caused differentiated impacts on women, environmental impacts, increased conflict, and harm to the social fabric. It also found that the bank did not guarantee access to information for the communities. "It is a serious wrongdoing that the bank has prioritized the advancement of these projects despite failing to comply with its internal requirements, to the detriment of our life as communities and ignoring our presence as indigenous peoples," said Rigoberto Juarez, Coordinator of the Plurinational Government of the Maya Q'anjob'al, Maya Chuj, Maya Akateko, Maya Popti and Mestiza indigenous nations. "Our individual and collective rights cannot be undermined in the face of private interests; consequently, a responsible withdrawal is the least the bank can do in the face of the magnitude of the damages caused. We hope that this will not happen again in other cases, and that the bank will assume its responsibility to respect the rights of indigenous peoples." The outcome of this complaint, as well as the international attention surrounding the case, is the result of a process of organization and resistance undertaken by the Mayan men and women of Yich K'isis upon being faced with of the imposition of large-scale hydroelectric projects, developed without due diligence and without consultation. For years, they have been demanding respect for their ways of life, and the value they hold for their water and their culture. The MICI report, apart from supporting the allegations of the affected communities regarding the violations of their rights, also sets an important precedent for Guatemala. This decision should be taken into account on a national level to address the countless irregularities and rights violations denounced throughout the country in the context of the implementation of mega-development projects, specifically large dams. press contacts Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, [email protected], +525570522107 Camila Castellanos, International Platform Against Impunity, [email protected]  

Read more
Mining, Freshwater Sources

International Arbitration Tribunal rules in favour of a Canadian company and puts foreign investment above Colombia's legitimate right to protect Santurbán

Bucaramanga, Bogotá, Washington, Ottawa. National and international civil society organizations are widely rejecting the decision made by the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) on September 10 in the case of Eco Oro v. Colombia, for at least three reasons: we consider that (i) it is inconsistent and reflects a profound ignorance of the socio-environmental complexity of the case; (ii) it is the result of an unfair and widely discretionary investment arbitration system that allows for arbitrary decisions made by those who oversee these cases and, (iii) increases the risk of further arbitrations being brought against the State of Colombia at the ICSID. ICSID is one of the institutions responsible for resolving disputes between States and international investors — in this case, within the context of the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. In the case of Eco Oro v. Colombia, the ICSID Tribunal concluded that, although the protection measures of the páramos adopted by Colombia were legitimate and did not constitute an expropriation of the rights of the Canadian company Eco Oro, its actions in the delimitation of the Páramo de Santurbán did violate the “minimum standard of treatment” to foreigners. The Tribunal has yet to decide on compensation for damages to Eco Oro and has asked both parties for more information to inform its decision. The Tribunal’s decision was the result of a process initiated by a supranational arbitration claim filed by the Canadian company Eco Oro against Colombia in 2016, which questioned the decisions made by the Colombian government to protect the páramos — the natural source of water for 70% of inhabitants. The Canadian investor [Eco Oro] intends to construct the Angostura gold mine in the Santurbán páramo, located in the northeast of the country. An inconsistent decision that ignores the socio-environmental complexities of the case. The majority of the Tribunal held that the decisions made by the Colombian government were in accordance with Colombian national law and were made with the legitimate aim of protecting the environment. In addition, the Tribunal recognized that the páramos are being threatened by both human intervention and climate change and that the possibility of their recovery from mining activities is very low, which is why it is necessary to protect them. As a result, the Tribunal rejected Eco Oro’s argument that the precautionary principle was not applicable, and pointed out that the Santurbán case was an example where it was, in fact, relevant. This was the grounds for rejecting one of Eco Oro’s claims that its rights had been indirectly expropriated by the State of Colombia. On the contrary, the Tribunal found that the measures adopted by the country were a legitimate exercise in environmental protection. However, when examining a second claim, the Tribunal explained that the inconsistency, hesitation and inaction of the State of Colombia in the delimitation of the Santurbán páramo had thwarted Eco Oro's investment expectations without any “apparent legitimate justification,” and had therefore not granted the investor "fair and equitable treatment" in accordance with the "minimum standard of treatment" for foreigners. This last ruling of the Tribunal is inconsistent. It ignores the socio-environmental complexity of the case and the challenges of materializing the right to environmental participation within the process of delimitation of the páramo. Although the decision recognizes that the delimitation involves managing widely disparate interests throughout the process, in the end — in a ruling far removed from the reality of Santurbán and its communities — the Tribunal took this process lightly, dismissing its complexities, and appears to have not taken it as legitimate and sufficient justification. An unpredictable, limiting and unfair arbitration system. "The Tribunal's decisions are not predictable, since decisions in one case do not bind future rulings on environmental issues.  There is no precedent set, as traditionally understood in the system. The breadth of the clauses and the arbitrators' freedom of interpretation are excessive, which is problematic not only for Colombia but for all countries in the region," said Yeny Rodriguez, a lawyer with the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). This decision allows mining investment to prevail over the Colombian State's obligation to protect the environment and the water of Colombians. We question the fact that the Tribunal has made its decision but has not judged the lack of due diligence by the Canadian company who knew from the beginning that its mining project overlapped with a páramo zone — a sensitive ecosystem protected by national law. This case demonstrates the arbitrary and overreaching nature of the supranational arbitration system, and the way in which it disciplines and punishes the governments of the Global South. It’s worth remembering that in February 2019, the Tribunal rejected the possible participation of the Santurbán Committee in the process. Uncertainty for Colombia. Carla García Zendejas, Director of the People, Land and Resources Program of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) stated, "The legal uncertainty that the supranational investment arbitration system represents for Colombia is enormous. The high levels of arbitrariness that characterizes the system leads to penalizing States for any circumstance in which expected profits are affected. And this is especially critical for Colombia, as there are other lawsuits against the country resulting from extractive projects linked to Santurbán and other fragile ecosystems. This could mean a domino effect of lawsuits and heavy penalties against Colombians." Two other lawsuits are currently underway before ICSID against the country by Canadian mining companies — Red Eagle Exploration and Galway Gold — for measures taken to protect the Santurbán páramo. There are also other lawsuits filed by Cosigo Resources, South32 Investments Limited, Gran Colombia Gold, Glencore International and Anglo American in connection to other extractive projects. We call on the Colombian State to denounce the free trade agreements and bilateral investment protection agreements to which it is party and to refrain from signing such instruments in the future. It is for these reasons above that today the Comité para la Defensa del Agua y el Páramo de Santurbán (Committee for the Defense of Water and the Páramo of Santurbán) is holding a day of protest in front of the Canadian Embassy in Bogotá, demanding that ICSID respect their legitimate fight for the defense of water, Santurbán and the páramos of Colombia. Likewise, we are also in front of Congress, demanding that the Investment Protection Agreements with the United Arab Emirates-Minesa be rejected. press contacts Comité para la Defensa del Agua y el Páramo de Santurbán, [email protected], +57 3012080622 Carla García Zendejas, Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), [email protected], +1 202 374 2550 Yeny Rodríguez Junco, Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), [email protected], +57 3107787601 Jamie Kneen, MiningWatch Canada, [email protected], +1(613) 761-2273 Manuel Pérez Rocha, Institute for Policy Studies, [email protected], +1 240 838 6623  

Read more