Human Rights

The fight against climate change: Time to turn promises into action

The Paris Agreement on climate change entered into force today. Nations must now implement the commitments that made this global consensus possible, and work to make them even more ambitious. On October 5, the nations of the European Union ratified the Paris Agreement, the binding global treaty on climate change adopted in a United Nations conference last December. With their signatures, the treaty met the requirements needed to enter into force: it was ratified by at least 55 countries, which account for 55 percent or more of global greenhouse gas emissions. Many Latin American nations contributed to this important political achievement by ratifying the agreement early, including Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Panama and Peru. In late September, China and the United States, the world’s largest emitters, also said yes to the new climate accord. Now all the nations that have ratified the Paris Agreement must begin to implement the national contributions they laid out last year, including, among other things, reducing emissions, financing climate actions, and taking measures for adaptation and mitigation. “These contributions are legally binding and can only be improved upon by increasing ambitions,” explained Andrea Rodriguez, AIDA attorney. “Nations cannot deny or go back on their word.” For the commitments to become a reality, each country must promote actions that meet international standards and create strong institutions to implement them.  Strong national and international support systems will enable governments to succeed at the adaptation and mitigation efforts that lay ahead. The world’s most vulnerable nations depend on special climate financing to cope with the impacts of a changing climate. The enactment of the Paris Agreement may result in a stronger, more predictable and transparent international financial framework. Sufficient funding and proper financial management are key to making national commitments not only concrete but ever more ambitious. “The entry into force of the Paris Agreement is an important global milestone. We can finally begin the urgent transformation of our economy and society towards a truly sustainable future. The irrefutable evidence of the impacts of climate change requires us to exercise historical responsibility to act quickly and get results,” said Astrid Puentes, AIDA co-director. “Latin America must show global leadership by implementing appropriate solutions and staying away from outdated strategies that increase the vulnerability of our countries and negatively impact people and communities.” 

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.

Peru begins testing La Oroya residents affected by toxic pollution

In May 2016, the IACHR required the Peruvian State to protect the life and integrity of 14 additional people affected by the heavy pollution of La Oroya’s metal smelter. Just last week, medical examinations began to evaluate the levels of heavy metals in the beneficiaries.   La Oroya, Peru. Last week 7 residents of the city of La Oroya were tested for concentrations of heavy metals in their bodies resulting from long exposure to toxic air pollution from the local metal smelter. The tests come five months after the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) requested that the State extends precautionary measures granted in 2007, increasing the number of beneficiaries from 65 to 79. In May, the Commission urged the State to take necessary measures to protect the life and personal integrity of the 14 additional residents of La Oroya. The measures include “conducting the necessary medical assessments to determine the levels of lead, cadmium and arsenic in the blood in order to provide medical attention in accordance with applicable international standards.” Following pressure from civil society organizations, medical evaluations were finally completed on seven of the new beneficiaries. In addition to testing for heavy metals, evaluations were also made in the areas of nutrition, dentistry, psychology, internal medicine, pulmonology and gastroenterology. The results should be processed by the Center for Occupational Health and Environmental Protection and delivered to the beneficiaries in a period of no more than 45 days. The Ministry of Health promised that those who require medical treatment will be attended to by specialists in Huancayo or Lima, as the Health Center of La Oroya doesn’t have the capacity to do so. The government also promised a new date for the measurement and evaluation of beneficiaries who couldn’t attend the first set of exams. On behalf of the organizations representing the victims, we hope this is the first step towards full compliance with the precautionary measures requested by the Commission. The measures request not only testing, but also specialized medical treatment and appropriate follow-up with each of the beneficiaries—those included in the original 2007 measures, whose protection remains in force, as well as those included in the extension granted this year. “Despite the fact that the precautionary measures were issued nearly 10 years ago—calling for urgent actions to protect the health of beneficiaries—they have not yet been fully implemented. For years the health problems of the beneficiaries have not been properly cared for,” said Christian Huaylinos, attorney with the Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos (APRODEH). The State must urgently address the condition of health services in La Oroya. The local health center is operating in a state of crisis, in a place that has been declared uninhabitable by the National Institute of Civil Defense. It has only five doctors for 66,000 people in La Oroya and in the surrounding Yauli province. “La Oroya’s structural problems with health and the environment must be solved urgently,” said María José Veramendi Villa, attorney with the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense. “The Commission must immediately issue its final report on this case, which was first presented nearly a decade ago. The victims have been waiting all this time for justice. If the State is truly committed to the people of La Oroya, that commitment must be shown through full compliance with the eventual recommendations of the Commission.” 

Bleeding Green Hearts: The constant state of danger for environmental activists in Latin America

“Wake up humanity, there is no time left!” Berta Cáceres, Goldman Prize acceptance speech, 2015 By María José Veramendi Villa (originally published in Disrupt&Innovate) Being an environmental human rights defender in Latin America is not an easy task. On the contrary, it is one of the most dangerous jobs you can have. Whether you belong to an indigenous, afro-descendant, or peasant community, whether you are an independent activist or affiliated with a civil society organisation, you are at risk. In its most recent report, On Dangerous Ground, Global Witness documented 2015 as the worst year on record for killings of land and environmental activists.[1] The report documented 185 killings in 16 countries, making Brazil (50 killings), Colombia (26 killings), Peru (12 killings), and Nicaragua (12 killings) the most dangerous in Latin America.[2] Unfortunately, the murder of environmental defenders represents a tragic end of the road of a larger problem. We, as a society, all want economic and social progress and governments are mostly elected on this promise. However, increasingly States and various private actors are routinely complicit in actions that aim to silence legitimate voices and the work of environmental defenders. Threats, harassment, and campaigns to discredit or criminalize take a toll on the work of environmental defenders, who end up spending significant time defending themselves before often-complicit criminal justice systems, or even physically protecting themselves from attempts on their lives. Several United Nations Special Rapporteurs and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights have recognised the important role that environmental defenders play in our societies and, as such, have recommended that States protect them. Nevertheless, the level of danger has continued to rise. Environmental defenders such as Berta Cáceres, whose lives should be protected by precautionary measures recommended by the Commission, continue being threatened or murdered in plain view of authorities — often with the complicity of a State. The Yanacocha mining company keeps harassing Máxima Acuña with the intent of forcing her out of her house to make way for the Conga Mining project, even after a Peruvian Court determined that she had not violated the company’s property rights. In La Oroya, a Peruvian Andean city, a metallurgical complex has operated since 1922. Dozens of victims of toxic pollution have been struggling for years to defend their health and environment, and keep seeking remedy in national and international courts. Their struggle has been plagued by attacks and campaigns to discredit them and the organizations that have assumed their legal representation. They have been labeled “anti-mining” and “anti-development,” harassed in the streets, and intimidated with hanging dead dogs in front of their houses.   The list of such incidents in Latin America just keeps getting longer. Poorly planned and developed mines, dams, and other infrastructure projects are linked to them. As members of societies that strive for economic and social development, we need to stop pretending that these and other countless attacks against environmental defenders do not happen or have no impact on the financial, political and social costs that we all end up paying eventually. The costs will come and they will be high. Governments need to wake up now and take action to defend the defenders. There is no time left! To the memory of those who have died defending something that should be precious to all but somehow is cared for by a few: our earth.  [1] Global Witness. On Dangerous Ground, June 2016, p. 4.  [2] Global Witness. On Dangerous Ground, June 2016, pp. 8 -9.  

Latin American environmental defender attacked, hospitalized

Goldman Prize winner Máxima Acuña de Chaupe reportedly attacked by mining company security guards. Washington, D.C. Goldman Environmental Prize winner Máxima Acuña de Chaupe was hospitalized after being attacked, allegedly by security forces hired by Minera Yanacocha, a subsidiary of Denver-based Newmont Mining, according to information provided by the Chaupe family. The attack took place on Máxima’s property in northern Peru that the mining company has been trying to obtain for its Conga gold mine project. “Minera Yanacocha must immediately stop their harassment of Máxima and her family, denounce attacks like this one, and call on its employees, agents and all others to ensure her safety,” said Earthworks’ Executive Director Jennifer Krill. The attack against Máxima is an alarming reminder of the murder earlier this year of Honduran activist Berta Cáceres. Berta was the 2015 Goldman Environmental Prize Winner from South and Central America. Both Berta and Máxima put their lives at risk by publicly denouncing multinational corporations threatening their communities. “Environmental defenders like Máxima, and the late Berta Cáceres before her, should not have to risk their lives to protect their homes and communities,” said Martin Wagner, managing attorney at Earthjustice. Máxima, who has lived in Tragadero Grande since the early 1990s, has been beaten, intimidated, and even sued by Minera Yanacocha. In 2014, Peruvian courts ruled in Máxima’s favor in an ongoing criminal complaint by the company. In April, prominent civil society groups including Global Witness, Sierra Club, Earthjustice, Earthworks, SumOfUs and others wrote to Newmont calling on the company to drop its lawsuits against the Chaupe family and end their harassment. The company failed to respond. "The Chaupe family has been harassed and beaten by Yanacocha for years," said Katie Redford, Founder and Director at EarthRights International, which has been supporting and advising the Chaupe family. "They are prepared to pursue all legal options to obtain justice." This most recent attack highlights the failures of both Newmont and the Peruvian government to uphold security, human rights and the consent of local communities. Newmont has ignored multiple calls from civil society to stop the physical and legal harassment of the Chaupe family, and the Peruvian government has failed to provide security for the Chaupe family as ordered by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). “Everyone involved in the mine project – the companies, the government, the security forces – is responsible for ensuring Máxima’s safety,” said Martin Wagner of Earthjustice. “By failing to speak and act against it, they are condoning this kind of attack and creating further risk to Máxima, not to mention their own reputations.” In February, Newmont filed a statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission indicating that they were no longer pursuing the proposed Conga mine that threatens the Chaupe home. “Newmont needs to immediately address the alleged involvement of its subsidiary Yanacocha in the criminal harassment of Máxima and her husband.  Newmont has reported to investors that it isn’t pursuing the Conga mine, but these attacks on poor subsistence farmers indicate that further plans are in development. What's happened is shocking, and shareholders need to know the potential risk of such an unethical venture,” said Glen Berman, Interim Executive Director of SumOfUs. For more information: Goldman Prize profile of Máxima Acuña de Chaupe: http://www.goldmanprize.org/recipient/maxima-acuna/ Blog about the Conga project cancellation: https://www.earthworksaction.org/earthblog/detail/conga_no_va#.V-BPtJMrK-4 Civil society letter to Newmont, April 2016: https://www.earthworksaction.org/library/detail/letter_to_newmont_re_maxima_acuna Grufides website: www.grufides.org

Supporting Mayan beekeepers in their struggle against GMO soy

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  

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.”   

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.”  

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.