Human Rights

Large Dams, Indigenous Rights, Human Rights

Civil society urges the United Nations to document human rights violations committed by businesses in Mexico

A group of organizations delivered their report highlighting more than 60 cases of violations across the country. Mining, infrastructure and energy projects—including hydroelectric and wind—were responsible for the greatest number of human rights violations. Mexico City, Mexico. On the occasion of the United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights’ official visit to Mexico, a coalition of more than 100 civil society organizations, movements and networks prepared a report outlining cases of human rights violations perpetrated by corporations in Mexico. The report highlights Mexico’s current human rights crisis, which has been recognized by various UN agencies[1] and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.[2] It lays out the clear dangers facing those who protect human rights, the land and their own territory.[3] Documented cases of human rights abuses involve 50 foreign, 41 national, and eight public companies. More than half the cases involved intimidation and/or attacks against human rights defenders. The most frequent violations were to the rights to: land and territory; access to information; health; a healthy environment; and consultation and free, prior and informed consent. During the Working Group’s regional visits, affected communities will show the experts the negative impacts caused by companies linked to mining, wind power, hydroelectric dams, agribusiness, infrastructure, oil and gas exploitation, real estate, tourism and maquilas (manufacturing facilities), among others. At the suggestion of civil society, the Working Group will meet with companies including: Grupo México, Grupo Higa, Grupo BAL, Bimbo, Goldcorp, TransCanada, Eólica del Sur, and CEMEX. They will also meet with the state-run production companies, Petróleos Mexicanos (Pemex) and the Federal Electricity Commission (CFE). Situations in Mexico that systematically hinder compliance with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights include: State Capture: complicity, corruption and impunity. In many documented cases, the Mexican State, at all levels (federal, state and municipal), has served business interests above public interest. This has been evident in: the promotion of rules and regulations that benefit business interests over human rights; the use of public force against peaceful social mobilization; the support of extractive projects against community interests; the lack of inquiry and sanction by the judiciary regarding allegations of human rights abuses; and the criminalization of environmental advocates. Structural reforms that weaken the protection of human rights and support companies, such as the energy reform, which does not always consider its impacts on human rights, and does not guarantee the participation and right of access to information of affected communities. Lack of consultation and the free, prior, informed, culturally appropriate, and in good faith consent of affected communities; lack of due diligence on the part of companies; and the proliferation of megaprojects with severe impacts on human rights. Lack of access to justice and non-compliance with rules and judgments, by companies as well as the Mexican State. On multiple occasions, affected people who have reported rights violations have later been the victim of attacks. And, even if a court—including the Mexican Supreme Court— ruled in their favor, the fulfillment of that ruling was not observed. Reduction of participation mechanisms and an increase in abuses against human rights defenders. The cases illustrate an increase in murders, criminalization, threats and attacks on human rights defenders who have spoken out against mega-projects and business activities. In 2011, the United Nations Human Rights Council issued the "Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights" in order to empower States to exercise control over business activities, ensure due diligence, and guarantee access to effective and appropriate remedial measures. In order to monitor the application of these principles, the Council established the Working Group on Business and Human Rights, whose visit Mexico from August 29th to September 7th 2016 will be their second visit to Latin America. On behalf of the organizations and communities that prepared this report, we hope that the conclusions reached by the Working Group at the close of their visit will reflect what Mexico truly needs. We urge companies operating in Mexico, as well as the Mexican State, to consider the recommendations seriously and implement them in current and future operations. For more information in social media, following along: #ONUenMX   The report was created with the participation of the following organizations and human rights groups (in alphabetical order): Alianza de la Costa Verde Ambiente y Desarrollo Humano Asociación Interamericana para la Defensa del Ambiente (AIDA) Bios Iguana Campaña Nacional Sin Maíz No Hay País Cartocrítica Casa del Migrante Saltillo Centro de Derechos Humanos “Fray Bartolomé de Las Casas” Centro de Derechos Humanos “Fray Francisco de Vitoria” Centro de Derechos Humanos “Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez” (Centro Prodh) Centro de Derechos Humanos de la Montaña, Tlachinollan Centro de Derechos Humanos Toaltepeyolo Centro de Derechos Humanos Zeferino Ladrillero (CDHZL) Centro “Fray Julián Garcés” Derechos Humanos Centro de Información sobre Empresas y Derechos Humanos (CIEDH) Centro de Reflexión y Acción Laboral (CEREAL) Centro Diocesano para los Derechos Humanos “Fray Juan de Larios” Centro Mexicano de Derecho Ambiental (CEMDA) Colectivo sí a la vida No al basurero tóxico en Noria de la Sabina Comités de Cuenca Río Sonora (CCRS) Comité de Defensa Integral de Derechos Humanos Gobixha (CODIGODH) Comité de Derechos Humanos de Tabasco (CODEHUTAB) Comisión Mexicana para la Defensa y Promoción de los Derechos Humanos (CMDPDH) Consejo en Defensa de la Vida y el Territorio TiyatTlali DECA Equipo Pueblo DH Rayoactivo El Barzón Chihuahua EcoRed Feminista la Lechuza Buza Enfoque DH Estancia del Migrante en Querétaro Frente de Pueblos en Defensa de la Tierra y el Agua (FPDTA) Fundar, Centro de Análisis e Investigación Foro de Derechos Humanos y Resistencias de la Sierra de Puebla Greenpeace México Grupo de Estudios Ambientales Grupo Focal sobre Empresas y Derechos Humanos Indignación, Promoción y Defensa de los Derechos Humanos Instituto Mexicano para el Desarrollo Comunitario (IMDEC) Movimiento Ciudadano en Defensa de la Loma Movimiento Mexicano de Afectados por las Presas y en Defensa de los Ríos (MAPDER) Movimiento Mesoamericano contra el Modelo Extractivo Minero (M4) OrganicConsumersAssociation (México) Oxfam México Programa Universitario de Derechos Humanos, Programa de Incidencia, Programa de Medio Ambiente, UIA Proyecto de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales (ProDESC) Proyecto sobre Organización, Desarrollo, Educación e Investigación (PODER) Red Mexicana de Afectados por la Minería (REMA) Semillas de Vida SMR, Scalabrinianas: misión con Migrantes y Refugiados Serapaz, Servicios y Asesoría para la Paz Y la Red Nacional de Organismos Civiles de Derechos Humanos “Todos los Derechos para Todas y Todos” (conformada por 80 organizaciones en 21 estados de la República mexicana).   The information was collected based on the baseline questionnaire for documenting abuses of companies prepared by the Business Information Center and Human Rights(CIEDH) and the network(DESC) https://goo.gl/YLhbSM [1] Declaration of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, ZeidRa’ad Al Hussein, done in his visit to Mexico in October 7, 2015: http://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=16578&LangID=E [2] Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.  Human Rights situation in Mexico, (OAS.Official Documentation; OEA/Ser.L) ISBN I. Title. II.  Series. OAS. Official Documentation; OEA/Ser.L. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.Doc. 44/15 p. 11 http://www.oas.org/es/cidh/informes/pdfs/Mexico2016-es.pdf [3] Institute for Economics & Peace, Global Peace Index 2015 Measuring peace, its causes and its economic value p. 8 http://economicsandpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Global-Peace-Index-Report-2015_0.pdf Mexico´s Rank 140 out of 163 http://www.visionofhumanity.org/#page/indexes/global-peace-index/2016/MEX/OVER  

Read more
Indigenous Rights, Toxic Pollution, Human Rights

NGOs call on Mexico to protect Mayan beekeeping communities affected by cultivation of genetically modified soy

The lives, health, and integrity of indigenous people are threatened by deforestation and contamination of their land caused by the cultivation of genetically modified soy. The situation is worsening because the Mexican government has not adopted effective measures to safeguard the rights of the communities.  Washington D.C., United States. Traditional Mayan beekeeping communities, alongside a coalition of national and international organizations, have denounced the cultivation of genetically modified soy in the Mexican states of Campeche and Yucatan as damaging to the lives, health, and integrity of Mayan people, and to the health of the environment on which they depend.   On July 25, a coalition of organizations filed a complaint on behalf of Mayan communities with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). The organizations are the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA); Centro Mexicano de Derecho Ambiental (CEMDA); Greenpeace Mexico; Indignación, Promoción y Defensa de los Derechos Humanos, A.C. (Indignación); and Litiga, Organización de Litigio Estratégico de Derechos Humanos A.C. (Litiga OLE). The health and way of life of affected people—especially children, pregnant women, and the elderly—are at increasing risk from deforestation and the use, during planting, of the toxic herbicide glyphosate, which has been proved to contaminate soil and water sources. The crops have been genetically modified to resist the herbicide, which leads growers to apply it in ever greater concentrations. The organizations asked the Commission to grant precautionary measures, an action that would urge the Mexican government to implement actions that protect the rights of communities and effectively halt the cultivation of genetically modified soy in Campeche and Yucatan. Leydy Pech, representative of the Mayan communities, said, “planting genetically modified soy in Mayan territory violates our rights and our culture, which has been passed down to us from our ancestors. Because of the cultivation of soy on our lands, we have lost medicinal plants, vital trees for local bee populations, and animals, and have even seen some of our archeological sites destroyed. This harms our Mayan identity and denies us the possibility of passing that knowledge on to our children; traditional knowledge that allows us to preserve the forest and generate wellbeing for our communities.” AIDA attorney María José Veramendi added, “the Mexican government has an obligation to apply the precautionary principle and take into account the health risks that come with glyphosate and the cultivation of genetically modified soy. By not doing so, the State is failing to comply with its duty to prevent violations of the rights of Mayan communities, who are exposed to the herbicide as it drifts on wind and contaminates water sources.” The affected Mayan communities live in the municipalities of Hopelchén, in the state of Campeche, and Mérida, Tekax and Teabo, in the state of Yucatan. Permits to cultivate genetically modified soy also affect other communities in the seven states of the Mexican Republic. The communities were not consulted, nor did they give their free, prior, and informed consent, before Mexico granted the permits necessary for the cultivation of genetically modified soy in their territory. Under international law, indigenous communities must be guaranteed the right to prior consultation and informed consent. What’s more, the planting has seriously affected traditional beekeeping practices, part of Mayan culture and one of the main sources of livelihood for the communities. In addition to requesting precautionary measures, the organizations filed a petition with the IACHR denouncing violations of the rights to land and communal property, to life and personal integrity, to a healthy environment, to work, and to judicial protection and access to justice. According to the organizations, the State has not taken effective measures to safeguard the rights of affected populations despite their efforts to seek justice in domestic courts. “Although the Mayan communities obtained a favorable ruling from the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court last November, the judgment did not resolve all the human rights violations,” explained Francisco Xavier Martínez Esponda, legal representative of CEMDA. “During the consultation process, authorities neither respect traditional manners of decision-making nor meet Inter-American standards for upholding this fundamental right. Since the Mexican State could not rule on all instances of rights violations or order their rectification, we have now brought the case before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.”   

Read more
Toxic Pollution, Human Rights

Statement from AIDA and APRODEH on the International Arbitration Ruling in La Oroya

The Peruvian government must adequately address the environmental, public health and employment situation in La Oroya. Lima, Peru. On Monday the International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) ruled in favor of the Peruvian government in a case involving the Metallurgical Complex of La Oroya. As organizations representing residents in La Oroya, the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) and the Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos (APRODEH) welcome the decision, which terminates the legal proceedings against the State. The Renco Group, owner of Doe Run Peru, operator of the smelter in La Oroya, initiated arbitration after the Peruvian government claimed the company failed to comply with its environmental commitments. ICSID, a World Bank-sponsored institution, dismissed Renco’s claim due to lack of jurisdiction. While AIDA and APRODEH celebrate this positive news for the government of Peru, it is our hope that, as a result of this decision, the State concentrates its efforts on providing a sustainable solution to the vast contamination in La Oroya, and that it prioritizes the health, environment and employment situation of residents there. We also urge the government to fully comply with the precautionary measures the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights granted in 2007, and extended in 2016, in favor of a group of residents affected by the pollution. Peru also must accept its international responsibility for the human rights violations committed against the inhabitants of La Oroya in the case that is pending before the Commission. Regarding the decision, AIDA Co-Director Astrid Puentes said: “For years we have worked to dismiss the false premise that our demand for the safe and responsible operation of the Metallurgical Complex of La Oroya somehow violates the rights of workers. Doe Run Peru—or any company—can and must operate the smelter in a way that also protects and respects the basic human rights to life and health, for the workers as well as the entire population of La Oroya.”  

Read more
Human Rights, Indigenous Rights

AIDA condemns threats to environmental defenders in Tolima, Colombia

As a regional organization, we call on the Colombian government to immediately adopt measures to guarantee the life and integrity of at-risk activists. The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) categorically condemns threats made against the Youth Socio-Environmental Collective of Cajamarca, Colombia (Cosajuca). On July 8, the organization—which forms part of the Environmental Committee of Cajamarca and the Network of Environmental Committees of Tolima—received a document containing death threats, only the most recent of a series of intimidations to which its members have been subject. The urgency of addressing this situation comes light of a larger problem in Colombia and across the region. In their most recent report, the international NGO Global Witness identified Colombia as the third most dangerous country in the world to be an environmental defender; 26 deaths were registered there in 2015. AIDA calls on the government of Colombia to guarantee the life, liberty and physical integrity of the members of Cosajuca. We also urge the establishment of a safe space for these environmental defenders to do their work, and a prompt investigation into the threats made against them. Freedom of expression and association are fundamental to the rule of law and a democratic society. Access to information, participation and the search for environmental justice are legitimate activities protected by the Constitution and the international legal treaties to which Colombia is a party. Cosajuca exercises those rights by promoting a popular referendum against mining contamination in the town of Cajamarca, and the department of Tolima, where large-scale gold mining operations are being planned. The harassment and murder of environmental defenders is pervasive throughout Latin America, which, according to the Global Witness report, is home to two-thirds of the world’s murdered activists and seven of the ten deadliest countries to be an environmental defender.    

Read more
Human Rights, Toxic Pollution

Peru must find a comprehensive and sustainable solution for La Oroya

We call on the President-elect of Peru to take into account, in any assessment of or decision about La Oroya, the rights of the population affected by the city’s severe pollution. La Oroya, Peru. On July 6, the President-elect of Peru, Pedro Pablo Kuczynski, visited the Metallurgical Complex of La Oroya (CMLO) and announced to its workers that it was necessary for the next Congress to approve a law to extend the deadline for liquidation of the Complex. This, he said, would give the company time to secure investors and finish the copper circuit. He also asked the workers and people of La Oroya to march on Congress to support his proposal. Reflecting on these public statements, the Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos (APRODEH) and the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense would like to express the following: The city of La Oroya deserves the full attention of all levels and sectors of government to resolve in a comprehensive, specialized and sustainable way the demands of the population that, at various times in its history, has suffered, and continues to suffer, violations of their basic human rights, including the right to life, health, integrity, work and a healthy environment. Regarding the right to work, La Oroya requires a deep assessment that permits the State to propose and implement not only remedial actions, but also actions that will guarantee decent and lasting work that will sustain adequate living conditions for the entire population. No action can resolve the underlying problem in La Oroya if it does not provide a guarantee of public health for residents. In that regard, we would like to remind the President-elect that since 2007 a group of residents from La Oroya have been the beneficiaries of precautionary measures granted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights that safeguard their life and personal integrity before the impacts of highly polluted air, soil and water. In May 2016, the Commission extended those precautionary measures to include new beneficiaries. In the corresponding resolution, the Commission stressed that harm to the health of the beneficiaries is exacerbated due to the lack of comprehensive medical care offered by the State. Its also worth noting that a case is pending before the Commission which seeks to hold the Peruvian government responsible for the violations to the population’s basic rights to life, health, and integrity—as well as to the rights of children—due to the lack of control of pollution in La Oroya and the lack of effective medical care for those affected by it. We call on the President-elect to take into account, in any evaluation or decision on La Oroya, the rights of the population affected by the pollution. This should be done responsibly and with a comprehensive vision that guarantees the rights to life, health, work, and a healthy environment. It is inconceivable to favor the development of any economic activity over the health of the people. The incoming government faces the challenge of finding a comprehensive and sustainable solution for La Oroya, one that fully respects Peru’s national and international obligations to human rights and the environment. 

Read more
Human Rights

Statement on the murders of environmental defenders in Honduras and Brazil

Threats to, as well as the intimidation, harassment and murder of environmental defenders must stop now! Yesterday we learned of the senseless murder of Lesbia Yaneth Urquía Urquía, a defender of the environment and indigenous rights who fought against the construction of the Aurora I dam in La Paz, Honduras. In a similar tragedy in Brazil, last month authorities found the lifeless body of Nilce de Souza Magalhães, a recognized leader of the Movement of People Affected by Dams (MAB), who worked for the rights of Amazon communities affected by large dams, predatory fishing practices and other threats. Both instances reinforce a tragic trend in Latin America, a region home to seven of the ten most dangerous countries in the world for environmental defenders. According to Global Witness, 185 environmental activists were assassinated worldwide in 2015; two thirds of them were from Latin America. Now, more than ever, it’s time to call for accountability. Lesbia Yaneth worked in alliance with the Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras (COPINH), and her death comes just four months and four days after the assassination of the Council’s leader, Berta Cáceres. Nilce disappeared in January, her body finally discovered on June 21 in the lake formed by the Jirau dam, against which she had fought in defense of the rights of her community. Regarding these unfortunate deaths, María José Veramendi Villa, senior attorney of AIDA’s Human Rights and Environment Program, said: “The increasing rate of murder of environmental defenders in Latin America is alarming. States must guarantee a favorable environment in which people can safely perform their work to protect the natural world. States must also investigate and appropriately punish those responsible for these violent acts. The murders of those who bravely defend the environment must not go unpunished. Threats to, as well as the intimidation, harassment and murder of environmental defenders must stop now!”  

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
Human Rights, Indigenous Rights

Victims of business-influenced human rights violations face obstacles to achieving justice

The asymmetry of power between companies and affected people, among other factors, makes access to justice difficult in the Americas. Organizations provided detailed information on this problem during a hearing before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). Santiago, Chile. Across the Americas, people and communities whose human rights have been violated by business activities face obstacles when exercising their right to access justice and achieve reparations for damages done. They are often confronted with criminalization, harassment and threats. Among other reasons, the situation reflects the reality that, in many countries, businesses are not properly controlled and may even receive government incentives to continue operations, despite the fact that they violate human rights. In a hearing before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, civil society organizations[1] demonstrated, through emblematic cases in South America, that this is a problem that happens throughout the region. One of these cases occurred in Brazil on November 5, 2015, when a dam of mining waste owned by Samarco burst in the Río Doce basin. The rupture caused the worst socio-environmental disaster in the country’s history: tons of toxic sludge moved down the river, destroying homes, schools, crops and livestock on its slow and deadly path to the Atlantic Ocean. The government and the company have since closed the case on the disaster, after reaching a settlement in which the victims were not even able to participate. “I lived a quiet life. I never would have expected to see what I saw, to witness families destroyed. We need employment, but we need it responsibly, not in a way that ends up killing people. We are asking for help now, because we can’t let these companies do whatever they want. If this Commission can help us, we would be grateful,” said Antonio Gregorio Santos, a victim of the case in Brazil. In the hearing, the organizations also referred to the case of Southern Peaks Mining, financed by the British-owned Barclays Bank, in which they are accused of breaching agreements with Mala communities in Peru. Here the victims found persecution and illegal detention in their search for justice. “We have identified various barriers to access to justice for the victims. Some—such as socio-economic, cultural and linguistic barriers—were identified in the Commission’s Report on indigenous peoples, afro-descendent communities and extractive industries,” said María José Veramendi Villa, attorney at the Inter-American Association for Environmental Defense, one of the petitioning organizations at the hearing. “Many obstacles are exacerbated in disputes with companies due, in large part, to the sharp asymmetry that exists in this relationship, expressed, for example, in political interference on the part of companies and in the lack of adequate independent safeguards for judicial power in many countries of South America.” The organizations requested that the Commission remind the States of their obligation to guarantee access to justice for those who have suffered human rights violations at the hands of companies, and urge them to strengthen domestic legislation accordingly. They also requested that the Commission develop binding standards regarding business and human rights in its rulings on petitions and individual cases—as well as in its thematic reports—in particular with regards to access to redress mechanisms. Finally, they highlighted the work of those who defend human rights against the actions of companies and reminded States that they must provide adequate conditions for their operation.  [1] Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA, regional); Centro de Información sobre Empresas y Derechos Humanos (CIEDH, regional); Centro por la Justicia y el Derecho Internacional (CEJIL, regional); Centro de Derechos Humanos y Ambiente (CEDHA, Argentina); Campanha para parar o poder das Corporações (Brasil); Justiça Global (Brasil); Pensamiento y Acción Social (PAS, Colombia); Project on Organizing, Development, Education, and Research (PODER, México); Fundar Centro de Análisis e Investigación A.C (México); Proyecto de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales (ProDESC, México); Centro Mexicano de Derecho Ambiental (CEMDA, México); Código DH - Comité de Defensa Integral de Derechos Humanos Gobixha (México) y Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos (Perú).  

Read more
Climate Change, Human Rights, Toxic Pollution

Mexico City: Air Pollution Points to Climate Solutions

By Laura Yaniz, AIDA social media manager (originally published in Animal Político) Smog causes continuous environmental alerts in Mexico City. But did you know a legal framework exists to combat the pollutants that cause it? Mexico City nearly entered into a state of emergency due to its poor air quality. The government almost closed gas stations, ordered half the city’s vehicles off the road, suspended classes, and closed government offices. If air pollution had spiked any higher, they’d have closed restaurants and reduced certain industrial operations by 60 percent. The cause of the crisis—which hasn’t been this bad in 14 years—is ground-level ozone. Along with black carbon, methane, and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), ground-level ozone is a short-lived climate pollutant (SLCP). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that, overall, SLCPs are responsible for more than 30 percent of global warming, although recent studies calculate that it may actually be closer to 40 or 45 percent. The good news is, they have a relatively short lifespan in the atmosphere, ranging from a few days to a few decades. Reducing these emissions, in Mexico and wherever they’re found around the world, presents an immediate opportunity to achieve near-term mitigation of climate change while improving air quality and human health. Close to Extreme Mexico City’s Metropolitan Index of Air Quality measures the chemical components of air in whole numbers that are easy to understand. On May 5, ozone reached 192 points (the equivalent of 0.1929 parts per million). When the Index reaches around 200 points ozone can damage skin. The city was only 8 points away! The city has spent several months in and out of Phase 1 of the Environmental Contingency Plan, whose most famous measure is the “Doble Hoy No Circula” program, which restricts vehicles from circulating two days a week, instead of the habitual one. If Phase 2 had been declared, the extreme measure would have divided vehicles by odd and even plates and declared that half of them could not be driven.  About Ground-level Ozone Ozone is a gas that exists in two different layers of the atmosphere. In the stratosphere (the highest layer), ozone absorbs ultraviolet radiation and protects us from the sun’s dangerous rays. In the troposphere (the lower atmosphere, from the ground to about 10 or 15 kilometers up), ozone acts as a greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming, harms human health, and affects the growth of agricultural crops. Tropospheric ozone is not directly emitted by any one source. Instead, it’s the result of a chemical reaction between the sun and “precursor gases,” which can occur naturally or be produced by humans. The most important precursor gases in regards to ozone are carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The latter cover a wide range of substances, including methane, and are primarily generated at gas stations, in homes, and through the chemical industry. Ozone remains in the atmosphere only a few days or weeks, a very short time compared to other gases, such as carbon dioxide, that linger in the atmosphere for centuries, even millennia. This is precisely what makes the mitigation of ozone an interesting opportunity: if we reduce emissions, we could see the climatic and health benefits in the near and medium term.  Ozone contributes to such illnesses as bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma, and can scar lung tissue permanently. According to a report from the Climate & Clean Air Coalition, an international organization dedicated to reducing short-lived climate pollutants, tropospheric ozone is responsible for roughly 150 million premature deaths each year. It also affects global food security by reducing the ability of food to absorb carbon dioxide, which reduces yield.  AIDA Supports Efforts to Control Short-Lived Climate Pollutants To help governments reduce SLCP emissions, AIDA attorneys have created a report, Controlando los contaminantes climáticos de vida corta: Una oportunidad para mejorar la calidad del aire y mitigar el cambio climático. El caso de Brasil, Chile, y México (Controlling Short-lived Climate Pollutants: An Opportunity to Improve Air Quality and Mitigate Climate Change: Brazil, Chile, and Mexico). We are distributing it to key decision-makers in government agencies to help them understand the urgency of the problem and the opportunities their legal frameworks provide to facilitate emission reductions. The report reviews policies, laws, and programs on air quality and climate change as they relate to SLCPs in Brazil, Chile, and Mexico. Of the three countries studied, Mexico is currently the only one that has incorporated these contaminants into its climate change policy. The government recently went a step further by including SLCP reductions in its Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs)—the commitments made under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. As the AIDA report notes, it’s not enough to recognize the importance of reducing SLCP emissions. Greater efforts must be made to reduce emissions. Countries must improve pollutant-monitoring systems, provide sufficient funding for emission-reduction programs, and create systems to evaluate progress. Developing strategies to identify principle emissions sources and to reduce emissions should be a near-term priority not just for the Mexican capital, but also for all the governments of Latin America. AIDA is committed to supporting policymakers with legal expertise that can speed improvements in air quality, human health, and climate change.

Read more
Human Rights

Letter to OAS Member States on the Financial Crisis at the IACHR

AIDA joins more than 300 organizations in calling on Member States of the Organization of American States to act swiftly in the face of the financial crisis affecting the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Our letter calls for urgent action to guarantee the immediate funding of the important human rights institution, as well as for the creation of a sustainable fund to guarantee ongoing financing. Read it below:   OAS Member States,  The Coalition for Human Rights in the Americas, and the members of other regional and global networks from civil society, express our deep concern over the severe financial crisis currently affecting the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (IACHR). We endorse this statement in order to appeal all Member States of the Organization of American States (OAS) to take the necessary actions to guarantee the immediate and proper funding of the IACHR in order to fulfill its mandate. In addition, we urgently call for the creation of a sustainable fund to finance the Organs of the Inter-American Human Rights System (IHRS), in order to address the precarious situation, which both the Commission and Inter-American Court of Human Rights have been going through since in the last few years. The Inter-American Commission is mandated to promote the observance and protection of human rights in the Americas, and acts as a consultative organ to the OAS in this area. It is the only regional mechanism that supervises the obligations of all  Member States of the OAS in this area, and constitutes the last resort for defending against violations of fundamental rights in the continent. The IACHR is an international referent, due to its great labour of protecting thousands of human rights defenders, who live threatened and criminalized in the Americas. This organ watches over the indigenous people and afro-descendant people’s rights, women and children, and the LGTBI community rights as well, among other vulnerable populations. The role of the IACHR, not only in the area of human rights protection, but also in the implementation of measures to promote their accomplishment, affects almost a billion people across the region. In spite of that, the Inter-American Commission has historically suffered from a structural lack of funds, which are currently reaching the point of effectively  compromising the Commission's ability to fulfill its basic functions, including its mandate assigned by the OAS Member States. The Commission itself has announced that on July 31st of 2016 the contracts of 40 percent of its personnel will expire, and at this time the Commission does not have the funds—or the expectation of receiving the funds—to be able to renew them. In addition, the IACHR has reported that it has been forced to suspend the country visits it had planned for this year, as well as the 159th and 160th Period of Sessions, which had been scheduled for July and October of this year.  In contrast with other human rights protection organs, either national or international, the financing received by the IACHR from the regular OAS fund, meaning from the Member States, is contradictory with the countries' wish to aspire to build a more democratic region. In 2016, the regular budget provided by the fund was around $5,4287.9 million dollars, which is 6.44 percent of the annual budget of the OAS – by comparison, the Council of European member States provides 41.5 percent of its annual budget to the promotion and protection of human rights.  Even though the OAS General Assembly has approved in the past resolutions committing to address this matter, these changes have not materialized with the required increase of resources, that would allow both the Commission and Court – whose budget will be reduced in a third part by the end of the year, if nothing changes – to have with the proper funding to successfully fulfill their mandates. In addition, the aim of this petition is not only for the IACHR to be able to carry out with the scheduled activities for the current year, to renew the contracts of 40 percent of its staff and to conduct the 159th and 160th Period of Sessions, but also to create a structure for this purpose that converts the funding of those organs into a sustainable practice, significantly increasing the budget that the OAS provides to the Inter-American Human Rights System. The signing Civil Society organizations see in this crisis a unique opportunity to reinforce the OAS Member States' commitment to human rights in the continent. This is why we call on countries to figure out how to secure a strong and stable funding structure, which effectively guarantees the protective devices and tools that the ISHR provides to millions of people in the Americas.

Read more