Human Rights

Belo Monte noncompliant with conditions for operation, says environmental authority

Altamira, Brazil. In their technical analysis of the Belo Monte Dam released yesterday, the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) concluded that the conditions required to approve Belo Monte’s Operating License have not yet been met. Ten of twelve conditions identified by IBAMA as pending compliance are considered essential for granting the license. Until the operating consortium, Norte Energía, addresses these conditions, the project will be delayed and the dam’s reservoir will not be flooded. “We welcome IBAMA’s thorough evaluation of Belo Monte, a project that has already had severe impacts on the environment and human rights,” said Astrid Puentes Riaño, co-director of AIDA. “Moving forward, it is crucial that all conditions are met, and measures to protect the people and environment of the Xingú River basin are fully implemented before the license may be granted.” The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) has for more than 5 years supported indigenous and local communities and organizations in their fight to denounce the irregularities of the Belo Monte project. The conclusions outlined by IBAMA reinforce the arguments of those who have long opposed the dam for its negative socio-environmental impacts. “If the Brazilian government approves Belo Monte’s operating license without first guaranteeing the protection of the environment and human rights, they would be violating their international commitments,” said María José Veramendi Villa, AIDA attorney. AIDA and partner organizations have long argued that conditions do not exist for the approval of licenses for Belo Monte. Essential services that would guarantee minimum rights to the displaced population remain outstanding, including potable water and health and sanitation services.  In 2011, the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights granted precautionary measures in favor of affected indigenous communities. The severity of the project’s human rights violations have been reinforced in a report by the Socio-Environmental Institute (ISA) of Brazil, to which AIDA contributed, as well as in information gathered by the health and indigenous protection authorities and the Brazilian Public Ministry.  AIDA expects that IBAMA’s technical report will be taken into consideration when making the final decision on the dam’s operating license. The outright denial of the license would serve as a paradigm for future mega-projects planned in the Brazilian Amazon, as well as other parts of the region, sending a clear message that economic development projects must not engage in human rights violations. 

The new climate agreement should help nations meet existing commitments!

The governments of the world are working on the negotiating text of a new global agreement to combat climate change. It will be signed in December, during the Paris Conference of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and will take effect in 2020. AIDA is advocating for the new climate agreement to be a tool that adequately addresses the effects of extreme changes in climate, especially in the most vulnerable countries. "We want the new climate agreement to help implement existing agreements effectively and strengthen national commitments made through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change; we cannot start from scratch and the new agreement should not replace the Convention, but rather improve its implementation, "said Andrea Rodriguez, AIDA senior attorney. With a view to the Paris Conference, delegates from various countries are meeting to work on the elements that will form the basis of the "Paris package." The package includes a new climate agreement (overarching commitments) and a decision (provisions likely to change over time) that spell out commitments made under the Convention. The next meeting will be held in Bonn, Germany, from August 31 to September 4. To contribute positively to the draft negotiating texts of the agreement and decision, AIDA prepared remarks for the negotiators aimed at strengthening two key issues: the financing of activities to combat climate change, and protection of human rights in carrying out such activities. On climate financing, the comments emphasize the need for the new climate agreement to help mobilize sufficient, adequate and predictable financial resources effectively, establishing concrete commitments, such as terms of responsibilities and timeframes. On the second point, the comments ask the Paris agreement countries to commit themselves to protecting human rights in all actions related to climate change, a commitment already made in the Cancun Agreements of 2010 that needs to be reaffirmed in the new legally binding climate change agreement in order to ensure compliance. Countries have already committed to provide 100 billion dollars to the fight against climate change, beginning in 2020. "The Paris decision on climate finance must provide assurance that countries will make every effort to ensure that commitment from 2020 on; then we will be able to trust that the new climate agreement will actually work," Rodriguez said. Learn more about our comments on climate finance and human rights for the new climate deal!

Indifference to life and health in Peru

By María José Veramendi Villa, @MaJoVeramendi In Peru, every year around 400 children die of cold. I learned this dramatic figure a few weeks ago when I read a column titled “Dying from Indifference,” by Congresswoman Veronika Mendoza. I asked with genuine indignation: How is it possible that children could die of cold in a country that prides itself on its mineral wealth, its great attraction for foreign investment, its tourism and culinary strengths? A country that hosts major world events such as the Conference of State Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change? Besides the lack of political will from our leaders, who worry more about looking good in photos taken at grand events, the answer can be found in a key paragraph of Mendoza’s column: “Where could such political will come from if no one is moved, if no one is indignant that these children die, perhaps because they tend to be “somewhere else,” usually peasants, who often speak Quechua or Aymara?” Regret before prevention On July 18, 2015, the government issued a supreme decree that declared a state of emergency in some districts and provinces of the country, due to frost. The first paragraph of the decree states that “every year and on a recurring basis, between the months of May and September, our country experiences weather events related to low temperatures, such as frost in our highlands, as was observed in recent seasons with extreme temperatures well below 0 ° C ...” If these weather events occur every year, why not prevent their impacts? In 2004, information from the Tyndall Centre, University of Manchester, revealed that Peru is the third most vulnerable country to the effects of climate change, the main cause of such phenomena as increasingly intense frost. Indifference to the violation of human rights Indifference in Peru not only manifests itself in children dying of cold in remote communities, but also La Oroya, a city only 175 kilometers from Lima. In a context of extreme industrial pollution, the population, including children, has for many years suffered violations of the rights to life and health. On August 11, a strike organized by the workers of the metallurgical complex in La Oroya, and the subsequent closure of the main highway that provides access to the center of the country, set off alarm bells in the city. Not bells that should sound when pollution limits are exceeded, but those of a long-neglected social demand. The metallurgical complex, owned by the company Doe Run Peru, is for sale and in the process of liquidating. According to information released to the public, no interested party submitted a financial offer because Peruvian environmental standards are too strict. In response, the workers took control of the road, demanding that the State relax those standards so the complex can be sold and they retain their jobs. The protest left one dead and 60 wounded. It ended after the signing of a five-point agreement, which does not mention the rights to life and health of the population of La Oroya. In a city that has been subjected to unchecked contamination for more than 90 years, Doe Run Peru has continued to obtain extensions to meet its environmental obligations. In July 2015, the company obtained a further extension of 14 years for the complex to meet environmental standards. But what about the life and health of the people? The State has not seen that environmental standards are met in La Oroya. Neither has it fully safeguarded the health of its inhabitants: • The air quality alert system has not been activated properly. • The doctors in charge of health and the heavy metals strategy are scarce and face the constant risk of running out of resources to continue working. • The State insists on asking the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to lift the measures ordered in 2007 to protect the lives and health of a group of La Oroya residents. Speaking Loudly Children are as vulnerable to cold as they are to the effects of industrial pollution. However, the State only comes to their aid in times of crisis or when it is too late. It sounds like a cliché, but children are our hope. Let us listen so they don’t die of cold and are no longer poisoned! Otherwise, we will also be victims of the disease of indifference. 

Belo Monte Dam may begin operations despite noncompliance

The dam has failed to comply with conditions for the protection of the health, integrity and way of life of affected communities. Organizations reiterate the validity of the precautionary measures granted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in favor of the indigenous communities of the Xingú River basin, whose situation of risk has worsened. Altamira, Brazil & Washington, DC – The Belo Monte dam is applying for authorization to begin operations, with construction reported at 70 percent complete. This authorization may happen despite the fact that the project has failed to comply with conditions necessary to protect the health, integrity and way of life of affected communities, including the indigenous peoples of the Xingú river basin. Civil society organizations solicited the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights to maintain the precautionary measures granted in 2011 in favor of the indigenous peoples of the Xingú river basin. They did so as a response to the Brazilian government’s request that the Commission lift the measures, which were authorized to avoid irreparable damage to the rights of the communities. The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), Justiça Global, the Sociedad Paraense de Defensa de los Derechos Humanos (SDDH) and the Movimiento Xingú Vivo para Siempre (MXPVS) filed the brief on behalf of indigenous and river communities affected by Belo Monte. The organizations argued before the Commission that the social and environmental situation surrounding Belo Monte continues to be serious and urgent, and could cause irreparable damages. Their arguments are based on a recent report by the Socio-Environmental Institute of Brazil (ISA), as well as on official government data that include information from health and indigenous protection authorities and the Public Ministry. The ISA report analyzes in detail the situation of Altamira, Pará—the region where Belo Monte is being constructed—and emphasizes the human rights violations and irregularities of the project.  The report warns that necessary conditions do not exist for the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) to grant the project’s operating license. If granted, the license would authorize the filling of the dam, and, thus, the final diversion of the Xingú River. One part of the dam would then begin operation. According to the ISA report, measures to avoid the project’s impacts on health, education and basic sanitation have not been met. This neglect will lead to further damage, such as the fracturing of indigenous communities, saturation of public health services, lower quality education, and greater forest degradation. “The consequences we announced years ago are now a reality,” said Astrid Puentes Riaño, co-director of AIDA. “The filling of the dam, scheduled for the year’s end, will cause the loss of homes and land, and the modification of the traditional lifestyles and livelihoods of Xingú communities. Brazilian authorities and the Commission must act effectively to prevent this disaster.” It is clear that the conditions necessary for Norte Energía, the consortium in charge of the project, to receive the license are not in place. The vice-governor of Pará explained that although the construction is 70 percent complete, only 30 percent of the social and environmental conditions have been met.  Similarly, the Attorney of the Republic of Altamira, Thais Santi, said that the consortium is not respecting the protection plan for indigenous lands, the principal condition for the protection of the peoples of the Xingú. The decision on the authorization of Belo Monte must also take into account the recent corruption scandal that has engulfed the project. The investigation Lava Jato, which began a year ago, exposed a massive network of corruption involving the government and Brazil’s largest construction companies. A senior executive, currently in prison on corruption charges, mentioned in his declaration how they had set up and executed bribes for the construction of Belo Monte. The Comptroller General (CGU) thereafter decided to investigate the use of public funds in the project. “The lack of effective control in the execution of the project has made the consequences much worse than anticipated. Giving free reign of operation to the dam at this time would mean completely shutting down the options available to avoid major social and humanitarian disasters in the region,” said Sandy Faidherb of SDDH. 

Letter to Pope Francis on the Delicate Situation of NGOs in Bolivia

Respectfully we turn to Your Holiness, on the occasion of your upcoming visit to Bolivia, as organizations that protect the environment and human rights in the Americas.  We wish to share with Your Holiness our growing concern about the severe limitations imposed upon civil society organizations (CSOs) by the Bolivian government, particularly with respect to those who defend human rights and those of Mother Earth. We celebrate the historic effort to protect our Common Home through the publication of your Encyclical letter, Laudato Si’. It is our hope your text drives profound change in the politics, practices and beliefs of our governments, corporations, and civil society, and inspires every person to create a more just and sustainable world. In your Encyclical letter, Your Holiness has highlighted the substantial contributions of our planet’s CSOs in putting environmental issues on the public agenda. We are deeply grateful for this recognition and we hope that Bolivian CSOs can continue playing their essential role in the promotion of and care for Mother Earth.  This requires them to be able to fully exercise their work without threats from the government, even in situations in which they do not agree. As Your Holiness understands, Bolivia has made essential contributions to the national and international recognition of the rights of Mother Earth. In 2009, the Bolivian people approved by an absolute majority their new Constitution, which recognized the right to a healthy and balanced environment for all people; consolidated the environment as a subject of rights; and upheld the rights of future generations to the same. President Evo Morales has also internationally promoted the rights of Mother Earth, the rights of indigenous peoples, and the international recognition of the human right to water. In 2010, President Morales stated, “Now it is more important to defend the rights of Mother Earth than to defend human rights, because in defending the rights of Mother Earth, we defend human rights.”[1] Bolivian civil society organizations, together with indigenous and peasant organizations, played a crucial role in solidifying this new constitutional framework. However, since 2011 their situation and relationship with the government has deteriorated, especially after the government’s decision to construct a highway through a National Park and Indigenous Territory (TIPNIS).  This is because most of the indigenous communities of that territory, and many civil society organizations working to defend the environment and human rights, opposed the project, considering it a violation of their rights that would cause irreversible damage to the natural habitat. Since then, the government has implemented policies and actions to weaken and limit the work of the CSOs. In 2013, the government of Evo Morales passed two laws (Act 351 and Supreme Decree 1597) that restrict and condition the functioning of CSOs to their compliance with sectoral policies of the government, that is to say, to the discretion of government actors. For example, the government can revoke the legal status of a CSO when it considers that the organization is not complying with sectoral policies of the government.[2] The Ombudsman of Bolivia submitted a claim of unconstitutionality against those laws in 2013, the outcome of which has not yet been resolved. These laws have scared the country’s CSOs away from their work for fear of losing their legal recognition. Many have been silenced to stay in line; others have ceased operations, or have converted to other legal status to prevent harassment from the government. Both the United Nations Human Rights Council[3] and the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association have expressed worry about Act 351 and its regulatory decree. Maina Kiai, UN Special Rapporteur, has stated that such laws “restrict the right of association in accordance with laws, standards, and international principles.”[4] The government has not yet incorporated United Nations recommendations to modify those rules.   On May 20, the government approved a law (Supreme Decree 2366) that authorizes the exploration of hydrocarbons in all of the country’s national protected areas. In June, President Morales threatened CSOs, particularly those that promote the protection of the environment, stating: “… I want to say to you: NGOs, foundations that impede the exploration of natural resources, will leave Bolivia…”[5] Your Holiness, as you may appreciate, the situation of CSOs, or any person or institution intending to protect the environment in Bolivia, is very delicate. We therefore respectfully request that you, in your upcoming visit to the country, may use your good offices before President Evo Morales to request that his government stop pressuring CSOs, and assume a public commitment to respect, protect, and guarantee their work in recognition of the freedom of association, freedom of expression, and political and institutional pluralism essential for the sustainability of our democracies. We are incredibly grateful for your attention, and we send our fraternal greetings in the hope that your visit and intervention can contribute to improving the protection of our Common Home in Bolivia. We’d like to take this opportunity to express our highest consideration and great esteem.   Fundación Centro de Estudios Ecológicos de la República Argentina (Argentina) Abogadas y Abogados para la Justicia y los Derechos Humanos, A. C. (México) Unidad de Protección a Defensoras y Defensores de Derechos Humanos (Guatemala) Medio Ambiente y Sociedad A.C. (México) Frente Ciudadano en Defensa del Agua y la Vida en B.C.S. (México) COMCAUSA AC (México) Acción Ecológica (Chile) Coordinadora Nacional de Derechos Humanos (Perú) Comisión de Justicia Social de la Diócesis de Chimbote (Perú) Instituto Peruano de Educación en Derechos Humanos y la Paz (Perú)  Ambiente y Sociedad (Colombia) Asociación Amigos de los Parques Nacionales de Argentina (Argentina) Centro de Estudios Mineros Colombia Punto Medio (Colombia) Instituto Runa de Desarrollo y Estudios sobre Género (Perú) Centro de Estudios Jurídicos e Investigación Social (Bolivia) Fundación Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (Argentina) Liga de Defensa del Medio Ambiente (Bolivia) Asociación Ecologista Río Mocoretá (Argentina) Asociación Eco Raíces (Argentina) Fundación Myrna Mack (Guatemala) Paz y Esperanza (Perú) Foro del Buen Ayre (Argentina) Asociación Ambientalista Ecolapaz (Argentina) Asociación Ambientalista del Sur (Argentina) Asociación Ambientalista Mayu Sumaj (Argentina) Asociación Argentina de Abogados Ambientalistas (Argentina) Asociación Civil de Ecología Social (Argentina) Asociación Civil Red Ambiental (Argentina) Asociación Civil Tierra XXI (Argentina) Asociación de Protección al Ambiente Serrano - Calamuchita (Argentina) Asociación Ecologista PIUKE (Argentina) Asociación Lihue (Argentina) Asociación Vecinal Moronense (Argentina) Bios Argentina (Argentina) Centro Ambiental Argentino – Cambiar (Argentina) Centro Andino de Desarrollo e Investigación Ambiental (Argentina) Centro Argentino de Meteorólogos (Argentina) Centro de Protección a la Naturaleza (Argentina) Comisión Interdisciplinaria de Medio Ambiente (Argentina) Comisión Ecológica Ituzaingó (Argentina)  Continental Nea (Argentina) Federación Amigos de la Tierra Argentina (Argentina) Foro de los Ríos (Argentina) Fundación Ambiente Ecológico (Argentina) Fundación Arandu (Argentina) Fundación Argentina de Energías Alternativas y Renovables (Argentina) Fundación Argentina de Etoecología (Argentina) Fundación Cullunche para la Conservación del Ambiente, la Flora y la Fauna (Argentina) Fundación Inti Cuyum (Argentina) Fundación Norte Ecológico (Argentina) Fundación Orden Ecológica (Argentina) Fundación Pacha Mama para el Medio Ambiente y Desarrollo (Argentina) Fundación para el Desarrollo Sustentable de Eco Regiones (Argentina) Fundación Pasos (Argentina) Fundación Península Raulí (Argentina) Fundación Proyectos Ambientales (Argentina) Fundación Red Informática Ecologista (Argentina) Grupo Ambiental para el Desarrollo (Argentina) Grupo Ecológico Bolívar (Argentina) Greenpeace Argentina (Argentina) Iniciativa Radial (Argentina) Instituto de Estudios e Investigaciones sobre Medio Ambiente (Argentina) Fundación Jorge Esteban Roulet (Argentina) Organización Argentina de Investigaciones Espeleológicas – Karst (Argentina) Movimiento Transfronterizo de ONG Ambientalistas de la Triple Frontera (Argentina, Brasil, Uruguay) Multimedios Ambiente Ecológico (Argentina) Observatorio de Políticas Sociales y Ambientales (Argentina) Red Eco-ambiental de Jujuy (Argentina) Taller ecologista Rótary Internacional (Argentina) Equipo de Reflexión, Investigación y Comunicación de la Compañía de Jesús (Honduras) Ágora Espacio Civil (Paraguay) Plataforma Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, Democracia y Desarrollo (Regional) Centro de Documentación en Derechos Humanos “Segundo Montes Mozo S.J.” (Ecuador) Fundación Étnica Integral (República Dominicana) Corporación para el Desarrollo de Aysén (Chile) Asociación pro Derechos Humanos (Perú) Alianza Mexicana contra el Fracking (México) Blue Planet Project (Internacional) Fundación Instituto Boliviano de la Montaña (Bolivia) Red MUQUI (Perú) Red Regional Agua, Desarrollo y Democracia (Perú) Asociación Interamericana para la Defensa del Ambiente (Regional) Organización Familia Pasta de Conchos (México) Centro de Estudios y Apoyo al Desarrollo Local (Bolivia) GRUFIDES (Perú) Derechos Humanos y Medio Ambiente (Perú) Hnas. de la Misericordia de las Américas, comunidad de Argentina (Argentina)  CADEP “José María Arguedas” (Perú) Red Latinoamericana Iglesias y Minería (Regional) Asociación Fe y Derechos Humanos (Perú) Food & Water Watch (EE.UU.) Centro de Derechos Humanos de las Mujeres (México) Grupo de Mujeres de San Cristobal Las Casas (México) Defensa de Niñas y Niños - Internacional, Costa Rica (Costa Rica) Movimiento Franciscano ̈Justicia y Paz ̈ Bolivia (Bolivia) Franciscans International – Bolivia (Bolivia) Instituto NATURA (Perú) CooperAcción (Perú)  Consejo Latinoamericano de Iglesias CLAI. Programa Fe, Economía, Ecología y Sociedad (Regional) Centro de Documentación e Información Bolivia (Bolivia) Comisión Colombiana de Juristas (Colombia) Red Uniendo Manos Perú (Perú)  Adhesiones personales Albert Hans Argote Adrian, Cochabamba, Bolivia Miguel Vargas Delgado, Santa Cruz, Bolivia Ariel Pérez Castellón, Cochabamba, Bolivia Severo Villarroel Zenzano, Oruro, Bolivia Donald K. Anton, Australia [1] Cfr. http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2010/04/22/mundo/024n1mun [2] Cfr. Decreto Supremo 1597, Artículo 19, inciso g. [3] Cfr. Human Rights Council, Final observations on the third periodic report of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, October 14 to November 1, 2013, paragraph 24 http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CCPR/Shared%20Documents/BOL/CCPR_C_BOL_CO_3_15635_S.doc [4] Cfr. http://www.noticiasfides.com/g/politica/la-onu-alerta-que-ley-sobre-ong-vulnera-el-derecho-a-la-libertad-de-asociacion-en-bolivia-34609/ [5] Cfr. http://www.cambio.bo/?q=oeneg%C3%A9s-que-perjudiquen-al-estado-se-ir%C3%A1n-del-pa%C3%ADs     

Victory: Aerial Spraying Stopped in Colombia

Independent report finds Dutch and German Development Banks failed to comply with environmental and human rights standards in financing the Barro Blanco Dam in Panama

Indigenous communities and civil society shocked by the banks’ inadequate response to the findings.  Kiad, Panama/Amsterdam/Bogota – Last Friday, a long-awaited report by an independent panel found that FMO and DEG, the Dutch and German development banks, violated their own policies by failing to adequately assess the risks to indigenous rights and the environment before approving a US$50 million loan to GENISA, the developer of the Barro Blanco hydroelectric project in Panama.  FMO and DEG’s response to the findings, while acknowledging some deficiencies in their assessment, does not commit to any measures to address the outstanding policy violations.  Even while the report concludes that “the lenders have not taken the resistance of the affected communities seriously enough,” it appears that FMO and DEG continue to do so. In May 2014, the Movimiento 10 de Abril (M-10), representing indigenous peoples directly affected by the project, with the support of Both ENDS and SOMO, filed the first complaint to the Independent Complaints Mechanism (ICM) of the FMO and DEG.  The complaint alleges that the Barro Blanco dam will affect part of the Ngöbe-Buglé indigenous territory, flooding their homes, schools, and religious, archaeological, and cultural sites. Despite national and international human rights obligations, the Panamanian government, GENISA and the banks failed to obtain the free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) of the Ngöbe-Buglé before the project was approved.  The ICM found that the “lenders should have sought greater clarity on whether there was consent to the project from the appropriate indigenous authorities prior to project approval.” “We did not give our consent to this project before it was approved, and it does not have our consent today,” said Manolo Miranda, a representative of the M-10.  “We demand that the government, GENISA, and the banks respect our rights and stop this project.” The ICM found that “while the [loan] agreement was reached prior to significant construction, significant issues related to social and environmental impact and, in particular, issues related to the rights of indigenous peoples were not completely assessed prior to the [loan] agreement.” The banks’ failure to identify the potential impacts of the project led to a subsequent failure to require their client to take any action to mitigate those impacts. The environmental and social action plan (ESAP) appended to the loan agreement “contains no provision on land acquisition and resettlement and nothing on biodiversity and natural resources management. Neither does it contain any reference to issues related to cultural heritage.”  “This failure constitutes a violation of international standards regarding the obligation to elaborate adequate and comprehensive Environmental and Social Impact Assessments before implementing any development project, in order to guarantee the right to free, prior and informed consent, information and effective participation of the potentially affected community”, explained Ana María Mondragón, lawyer at the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). While FMO and DEG acknowledged in their official response to the ICM’s report that they “were not fully appraised at credit approval,” they made no further concrete commitments to ensure that the rights of those affected by the dam will be respected.  The banks claim that they are “facing limitations in their influence” over government processes to come to a satisfactory agreement with all stakeholders involved. Their actions, however, reveal a different story. In February, the Panamanian government provisionally suspended construction of the Barro Blanco dam. Subsequent to the suspension, the government convened a dialogue table with the Ngöbe-Buglé, with the facilitation of the United Nations, to discuss the future of the project. Rather than supporting the Government of Panama to respect the rights of the Ngöbe-Buglé, FMO and DEG have requested that Panama’s environmental authority reconsider the suspension and allow their client to resume construction.  In February, they sent a letter to the Vice President of Panama, expressing their “great concern and consternation” about the suspension and noting that it “may weigh upon future investment decisions, and harm the flow of long-term investments into Panama.”  While the banks asserted that their consultants found nothing that would warrant the suspension of the project, they failed to mention that their own independent accountability mechanism was undertaking an investigation of the project.  Indeed, by that time, the banks had already seen a draft of the ICM’s report with findings that the project was not in compliance with its own policies.   “We were surprised to find out about the role of the banks in influencing the national process, as this is in contradiction to their assertions that they are not in a position to intervene in national decision-making.” said Anouk Franck, senior policy advisor at Both ENDS, based in Amsterdam. “They should now show their commitment in coming to a solution and start taking FPIC seriously, in the case of Barro Blanco, where due to delays in tackling the issue, the banks might need to accept losses on their loan. And they need to find ways to assure themselves FPIC is obtained where relevant, for example through human rights impact assessments.” The handling of the complaint was a lengthy and at times frustrating process. GENISA refused to cooperate with the ICM and provide them with access to project documents, leading the banks to conclude a secret side agreement with GENISA. The secret side agreement superseded the publicly available procedures of the ICM and allowed GENISA to review the draft and final investigation reports before they were shared with complainants.  “FMO and DEG are more concerned with protecting the interests of their client than they are with protecting the rights of those affected by the projects they finance,” said Kris Genovese, senior researcher at the Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO).  “It’s a tragic irony that banks asked the consent of the company to publish the ICM’s investigation report, but didn't ask consent of Ngöbe-Buglé for the project.”   The Barro Blanco project was registered under the Clean Development Mechanism, a system under the Kyoto Protocol that allows the crediting of emission reductions from greenhouse gas abatement projects in developing countries. “As climate finance flows are expected to flow through various channels in the future, the lessons of Barro Blanco must be taken very seriously. To prevent that future climate mitigation projects have negative impacts, a strong institutional safeguard system that respects all human rights is required,” said Pierre-Jean Brasier, network coordinator at Carbon Market Watch. “The opportunity to establish such a necessary safeguards system is now, ahead of the Paris agreement, to put the respect of human rights on top of the UNFCCC agenda.” The ICM will monitor the banks’ implementation of corrective actions and recommendations.  Meanwhile, the M10 expect FMO and DEG to withdrawal their investment from the project and ask that the Dutch and German governments show a public commitment to ensuring the rights of the affected Ngöbe-Buglé. At the same time, the banks should refrain from putting pressure on the Panamanian government.

The Nicaragua Canal: Resistance to Dispossession

“How do I explain do my son that to be a landowner will soon mean to be an employee?” asked a woman who may soon lose her land because of the proposed Nicaraguan Interoceanic Grand Canal. Her question resounds in my head each time I hear news of the canal’s construction. There is nothing more valuable than a piece of land to cultivate, land you’ve dreamed of your whole life, land that your children will some day inherit, land that makes the early mornings and long days working under the hot sun worth it. People throughout Nicaragua have said “no” to the proposed canal. They have decided to fight because they’re not willing to lose their dreams for nothing more than the promise of a job. A Controversial Canal The proposed canal will cross Lake Nicaragua, or Cocibolca, the second largest lake in Latin America. It will cut the country in two to connect the Caribbean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean with the Pacific. At 278 kilometers, it will be three times larger than the Panama Canal.  The project’s estimated cost is 50 billion dollars. More than just the canal, it will include other megaprojects: an airport, highways, a free trade zone, resorts and two ports – one on the Pacific and the other on the Caribbean. The magnitude of the project will be reflected in the negative impacts it will cause. Canal construction will directly affect 119,000 people in 13 municipalities, according to Mónica López Baltodano of Fundación Popol Na. She presented this information at a special hearing on March 16, 2015 before the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights. The hearing was requested by 10 organizations from Nicaragua and the multi-national Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL). “Our greatest worry is that the exact number of citizens who will undergo a process of expropriation (those who will be displaced from their land) remains a State secret, and there are no plans for relocation or the restoration of living conditions,” Lopez explained. Azahelea Solís of the Citizens’ Union for Democracy (UCD) added that granting licenses for the project “violates the Constitution of the Republic, various national laws, and more than 10 international environmental treaties signed by Nicaragua.” In addition, the canal was approved in the absence of an environmental impact assessment. The concession was granted to a single company: the Chinese consortium HKND. In the hearing, Louis Carlos Buob of CEJIL explained that the consortium has exclusive rights to “development” and “operation” of the canal, potentially for at least 116 years. The concession gives them “unrestricted rights over natural resources like land, forests, islands, air, surface and groundwater, maritime space and additional resources that could be considered relevant anywhere in the country.” The damage to these natural resources is precisely the most worrying thing about the canal. Its construction will impact Lake Cocibolca, the most important fresh water source in Central America. It also “threatens sensitive marine ecosystems in the Caribbean Sea belonging to Colombia and divides in two the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor, a loose network of reserves and other land that stretches from the south of Mexico to Panama, which animals such as the jaguar use to cross Central America.” Community Resistance Those affected by the expropriations have formed the National Council for the Defense of our Lands, Lake and National Sovereignty. Through this united front they have expressed their total opposition to the project and have stated that they will not sell their lands for the canal’s construction. According to the page Nicaragua sin heridas, a citizen’s initiative to disclose information on the project, there have been 41 protests against the project, in which 113,500 people have mobilized across 25 territories in just five months. The community of El Tule, in the department of Rio San Juan, has become an emblem of the anti-canal fight. The citizens there who will be affected by the project have held marches and rallies. On December 24, they were victims of repression at the hands of the National Police – the crowd was beaten and 33 people, including leaders of the movement, were imprisoned for their protest. In Tule there was no Holy Night, and no Merry Christmas. A Disastrous Trend Sadly, the Nicaragua Canal is just one of many projects that gravely affect human rights and the environment in Latin America. In the last 20 years, more than 250 million people have been displaced in the name of “development” for megaprojects, such as dams, or extractive activities, such as mining. In October 2014, alongside partner organizations, AIDA called Inter-American Human Rights Commission’s attention to forced displacement caused by the inadequate implementation of mining and energy projects in Colombia. On that occasion, we asked the Commission to develop standards on displacement by megaprojects and urged the Colombian government to properly care for the victims. Megaprojects not only cause forced displacement, but also violate other human rights ranging from the loss of ways of life to the criminalization of social protest, as occurred in El Tule. In Mexico, the Miguel Augustín Pro Juárez Center for Human Rights published the report Han Destruido la Vida en Este Lugar (They’ve Destroyed Life in This Place, 2010), which documents the damage caused by megaprojects and by the exploitation of natural resources. According to the report, in addition to forced displacement, these projects cause harm to ways of life and broken cultural ties. I would add that displacements break community social networks, vital to the exercise of rights. Left with Questions What will happen to those whose land is expropriated by the Nicaragua Canal? Are they condemned to be displaced and see their dream of landownership destroyed? Who will guarantee respect for their human rights? In what way can Nicaraguan civil society and those unaffected by the project help them? Today the canal threatens to become a reality for one of the poorest countries in Latin America, with a recent history of dictatorship and civil war, that is each day more vulnerable to climate change and natural disasters. How do I explain do my son that to be a landowner will soon mean to be an employee? I still have no answer. 

Belo Monte: The Urgency of Effectively Protecting Human Rights

Four years ago this month, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights took an important step forward for the peoples of the Xingú River Basin. It requested that the Brazilian government adopt precautionary measures to prevent irreparable damage to the rights of indigenous communities along the Amazonian tributary. Their cultural integrity and way of life were, and still are, at risk from the construction of the world’s third-largest dam, Belo Monte. Yet that major victory for those fighting to protect life on the Xingú has been diluted with time. As the decision weakened, so too did confidence in the Commission, an organ of the Organization of American States (OAS) charged with ensuring the protection of human rights on the continent.  The Initial Request In November 2010, AIDA and partner organizations in Brazil requested precautionary measures from the Commission in a context of gravity and urgency characterized by: An irregular licensing process. An insufficient Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA), which contained neither all possible impacts nor the mitigation measures needed to guarantee the communities’ rights, and was not translated into the indigenous languages of the affected populations. The project’s failure to comply with more than 60 social, environmental and indigenous provisions established in the previous license as safeguards for the rights of the affected. Absence of consultation with affected indigenous communities and lack of their free, prior and informed consent. In response, the Commission requested that Brazil immediately suspend construction and all licensing of the dam until the project complied with the following conditions:  Undertake consultation processes that are of good faith and culturally appropriate, with the goal of achieving the free, prior, and informed consent of affected communities.   Ensure that affected communities have access to the Environmental and Social Impact Statement in an understandable format, which includes translation into indigenous languages. Adopt measures to protect the cultural integrity and way of life of indigenous peoples, including those in voluntary isolation, and to prevent the spread of diseases and epidemics among affected communities. The Response of Brazil and the OAS The Brazilian Government rejected the measures, calling them "precipitous and unwarranted." In response, Brazil withdrew its envoy from the Commission and recalled its ambassador to the OAS. Then, claiming a need for economic austerity, Brazil suspended funding to the Commission and defaulted on its annual compulsory contribution to the OAS. The outlook worsened when the Secretary General of the OAS, José Miguel Insulza, told the BBC: "The Commission makes recommendations. They are never mandatory orders… no country will be violating a treaty if they don’t do what the Commission asks. The Commission has no such binding force."  These undermining comments provided several hostile member States with justification for launching a process to "reform" the Inter-American Human Rights System. The controversial process lasted more than two years and, rather than strengthen the Commission, the hostile States actually attempted to undermine its autonomy and weaken its mechanisms.  One Step Back On July 29, 2011, just four months after granting the precautionary measures, the Commission modified them. It withdrew its request for suspension of construction and licensing, claiming the fundamental argument had turned into a debate, which went beyond the scope of the precautionary measures, on whether prior consultation had been conducted with the indigenous communities and whether they had given their informed consent for the project. Instead, the Commission requested that Brazil adopt new measures to protect the way of life and personal and cultural integrity of indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation, as well as the health and territory of all affected indigenous communities. This change represented a major setback, not just for the indigenous communities of the Xingú, but also for the thousands of communities throughout the region whose cultural integrity and way of life are at risk from the heedless implementation of projects like Belo Monte. Brazil’s indigenous communities had hoped that the Commission would stand by its decision to suspend the dam, and would protect them while the case – presented in 2011 by AIDA and partner organizations from Brazil – was underway. Up Against Time After four years, Brazil has not only breached the precautionary measures, but has also repeatedly requested that they be lifted. Worse still, the government has allowed construction of the Belo Monte Dam to continue, and the project is now 70 percent complete. A few months ago, the company in charge of construction, Norte Energia S.A., requested the dam’s operating license from the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Natural Resources. Once granted the license, they will begin to fill the dam’s reservoir and, with it, flood a portion of the Amazon half the size of Rio de Janeiro. The Commission has yet to petition the Brazilian government to determine whether or not the project’s authorization included a process of prior consultation This important step remains despite the fact that, when modifying the precautionary measures, the Commission itself noted that the discussion had to happen in the context of a petition. What’s the risk? When the Commission finally makes a decision on the case it may be too late to prevent damages to affected communities. A Major Challenge Although there has been some progress in protecting affected communities as a direct result of the precautionary measures, which the Brazilian government has yet to recognize officially, the process thus far has clearly demonstrated that the Inter-American Human Rights System is imperfect and vulnerable to political pressure. This vulnerability must be overcome. We must focus on building a truly efficient System that works best for its beneficiaries: the victims of human rights abuses. Four years after what seemed like an important victory, Belo Monte has taught us that if we seek to protect human rights in the region effectively, governments must not be allowed to jeopardize the system established for that purpose through political and economic pressure. Due to the realities of the region, many cases like Belo Monte have come, and will continue to come, before the System. While they are not easy to resolve, we mustn’t choose inaction in the face of suffering. In the case of Belo Monte, the Commission still has time to act. It’s our hope that this case will become a model for equitable access to justice. At AIDA, we will continue working until we ensure that the environment and the rights of communities in Brazil’s Xingú River Basin are fully respected.

Internationally Advocating for Accountability for Human Rights Abuses

Juana[1] is suffering from respiratory problems and her sister has asthma. They live in La Oroya, a small city in Peru’s central Andes. It was years before Juana had access to the information she needed to understand the source of their illnesses: toxic contamination from the Doe Run metal smelter.  Although there has been some progress, Juana and the rest of the people affected by the contaminated air in La Oroya still do not receive the specialized and comprehensive medical care they need. In cases like La Oroya, victims don’t always find justice in their own countries and must raise their demands to an international level. One space to do so is the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights public hearings, held twice a year in March and October.  AIDA has actively participated in case hearings on specific human rights violations, such as in La Oroya. But we have also requested and received thematic hearings on problems facing Latin American countries or the region as a whole. We have participated alongside and in collaboration with other civil society organizations.  "By providing information and arguments, we encourage the Commission to make visible worrisome situations of human rights violations caused by environmental degradation, and to take actions to stop them: develop standards, monitor cases, and make recommendations to States," explained María José Veramendi Villa, senior attorney at AIDA.  Last October AIDA and partner organizations called the Commission’s attention to mining and energy projects that force displacement of people and communities in Colombia. We also requested that the Commission develop standards governing displacement caused by large infrastructure projects, and insisted that the Colombian government properly respond to the victims.  "These hearings are the most comprehensive and flexible tool to ensure the Commission receives information about the issues that are troubling to the region. There are so many worries, and so many organizations wanting to be heard, that there is not enough time. The hearings are an indicator of the most relevant issues of the times and, through them, civil society develops an agenda of work," said Ana María Mondragón, attorney at AIDA.  AIDA returned this month to Washington, D.C., seat of the Commission, to participate in a thematic hearing that brings to the table a current and deepening concern: the predominant role corporations are playing in the violation of human rights in Latin America. One example is the case of Máxima Acuña Chaupe in Cajamarca, Peru.  The Yanacocha mining company is interested in developing a project on her territory and, in order to do so, accused her of usurping land.  Although a judicial court ruling established Máxima’s innocence, she and her family live in fear that the company may again try to take away their home. The case of the Chaupe family, and many others in the region, demonstrates the importance of bringing this issue before the Commission. "During the hearing, we presented information to fuel debate about opportunities for the Commission to create, implement and strengthen international standards on business and human rights," explained Veramendi Villa. "By doing so, the Commission can urge States to control and/or sanction corporations – like Doe Run Peru and Yanacocha – whose activities harm the environment and violate human rights and ensure access to justice for its victims." [1] Name has been changed to protect confidentiality.