Human Rights

For the life and health of my children: We MUST include Human Rights in the New Climate Accord

By Astrid Puentes Riaño (@astridpuentes) Originally published by IntLawGrrls We humans have caused climate change, a real threat to humanity thus it requires human solutions.  We also have lost precious time on eternal discussions about the existence of climate change, despite imminent evidence.  Our efforts to deliver solutions must be inclusive and ambitious if they are to ensure that the lives and livelihoods of all people are protected. If and how to include human rights protections in new climate accord was one of the primary issues discussed during October’s Bonn Climate Conference. These protections were notably left out of the no-text presented by the co-chairs, and then added back in at the insistence of several countries, many from the Global South, and hundreds of civil society organizations. I could write a long list of legal, political, ethical, and economic arguments as to why human rights must be included in the Paris Agreement. In my opinion, however, they can all be distilled into two primary and powerful arguments: my children! At 4 and nearly 2 years old, they are already experiencing the realities of a changing climate.  Some days, for example, they cannot go to the park because of increased air and climate pollution levels in Mexico City, be it black carbon or ozone, or both.  Unfortunately, the worst is yet to come, as hurricanes, droughts, floods, glacier loss, and fires are all increasing. Now the question for my kids is not whether they will suffer from climate change, but to what extent. Some may say I’m exaggerating, and that my kids aren’t among the most affected. They’re right. Many others are suffering, and will continue to suffer, far worse consequences, such as: the Kunas in Panama, who are loosing their land due to sea-level rise; the 62 million people living on 52 small island states, including Tuvalu and Barbados; the 70 million people in the Andes, all of whom depend on water from glaciers and paramos, which are expected to dissapear within a few decades. Despite the evident urgency, official responses have been shamefully slow. The United Nations recently announced that current national commitments aren’t enough to prevent world temperatures from surpassing 2oC by 2100, when my children will be 89 and 87 years old. How, then, can we speed up agreements, increase ambition, and close the gap between what is needed and what is promised by States? Human Rights are an important part of this answer. If implemented, they can help to: Recognize the realities of climate change and its impact on the enjoyment of human rights of all peoples, particularly those in vulnerable situations. Remind States of their existing obligations to protect and respect human rights, obligations which are fundamentally shared by corporations and other international entities. Incorporating human rights in the climate change agreement will not create new obligations; it will instead allow us to be consistent and comply with preexisting commitments. Avoid increased threats to world stability that have been linked to climate change due to impacts such as: local resource competition, livelihood insecurity, migration, extreme weather events and disasters, volatile food prices, transboundary water management, sea-level rise, coastal degradation, and the unintended effects of climate policies. Spur effective solutions, such as the rethinking of energy. These kinds of solutions haven’t yet been achieved due to a lack of ambition and political will. For my son and daughter, and the millions of children of the world, we must accept that climate change is a human rights issue. For the health of future generations, and that of those already suffering from its impacts, we must do all we can to create effective solutions. The new climate accord, which will be signed in Paris this December, must include human rights protections in its Preamble, as well as in its operative text. Only then, with an overarching respect for the rights of all people, can begin to see the results we need in the fight against climate change. We must take the climate crisis seriously. If not, we will be trapped in short-sighted negotiations that won’t provide my children the hope of a dignified and healthy life. They will be left inside, unable to play in the park, to enjoy the world beyond our doorstep. And those in more vulnerable situations may be left with nowhere at all to find the shelter they seek.

Still Waiting for Justice in La Oroya

Part 1 of a 2-Part Series on the Human Rights Situation in La Oroya, Peru. By María José Veramendi Villa Juana[1] is tired. She and her neighbors have been waiting eight years for a ruling; eight years for a decision that could better their lives, clean their air, attend to their sick children and families. What began as a courageous and hopeful quest for justice has become a discouraging waiting game. Since 2007, a group of residents in La Oroya, Peru, has acted as petitioner in a case before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Community of La Oroya v. Peru. For nearly a century, their city has been contaminated by the operation of a metallurgical complex (smelter) within its borders. The smelter has blackened the air, poisoned their bodies, and released toxic chemicals into the land and water. La Oroya was once identified as one of the most polluted cities in the world. The severe contamination has, and continues to have, grave impacts on the health of the city’s residents. Realities of La Oroya When AIDA’s co-executive director Anna Cederstav first arrived in La Oroya in 1997, women were walking around with scarves covering their faces, a vain attempt to ease the pain of breathing. Juana explained that she had felt the steady burning in her eyes and throat—the effects of contamination—since she could remember, but didn’t pay it any mind. Like most of the population, she thought it was normal. She didn’t really know what clean air was because she’d never experienced it. AIDA has worked for nearly two decades with the community of La Oroya. In 2002, we published the report La Oroya Cannot Wait with the Peruvian Society for Environmental Law. That report began to reveal to the community the severity of the pollution and health risks they were facing on a daily basis. The community realized they had to do something. Juana said it was in 2003, more than 80 years after the smelter began operating, that she became aware of the contamination. Through work with her parish, she was able to access information and learn about what was happening in her city.  From there, she connected the dots—the respiratory problems in her family were, in fact, a result of her city’s extreme contamination. The quest for justice Residents submitted their case before the Inter-American Commission after their attempts at justice within Peru produced no remedy. A 2006 ruling by Peru’s Constitutional Tribunal against the State ordered it to adopt measures to protect the health of the community, but the State took no such action. In 2007, the Commission urged the Peruvian state to carry out precautionary measures—a specialized diagnosis of 65 residents and treatment for those who showed irreversible damage to their lives or personal integrity. Juana said receiving news of the precautionary measures was a happy moment because “we knew that we were winning something. At the beginning, everything went well and we believed that everything would be fixed, (but) with the passing of months—years—there were no answers.” Then, in 2009, the Commission issued a report admitting AIDA’s petition, declaring that the State’s omissions in the face of pollution could, if proven, represent human rights violations. But still, nearly a decade after the petition was first filed, the victims await a decision, the precautionary measures have yet to be enforced, and the State’s responsibility for the acts have yet to be established.  “It’s taking a really long time, and not all of us have the patience or desire to keep waiting,” Juana said. Time affects the victims, wearing them out until they begin to waver and give up fighting for their right to justice. They become even more vulnerable as they face a city hostile to anyone who fights for their rights to life and health, a state that denies its responsibility and looks for any excuse to avoid assuming responsibility, and a company that wants to polish its reputation and use its economic power to manipulate the government. Where is the law in these cases? Where is justice? Juana explained that leaving La Oroya would be impossible for her family, because there they have work. She remains committed to achieving change with the lawsuit. But that’s not the case for everyone.  La Oroya contains thousands of stories of families whose lives were radically changed due to the city’s contamination and the subsequent damages to their health and lives. There are those who had to abandon their homes because they did not see a future in the city, and those who have been unable to leave La Oroya because their entire lives and family are there. Then there are those who have suffered painful attacks and insults from their own neighbors in a community worried about losing jobs, but who march forward with the conviction that, one day, change will come and La Oroya will be a better and fairer place for them, their children, and their grandchildren. I trust and hope that the law will deliver justice to salvage those years of waiting. [1] The name has been changed to protect the client. This blog is based on a longer article Maria José wrote on the case entitled La Oroya: A Painful Wait for Justice. It was published as Chapter 8 of DeJusticia’s book, Human Rights in Minefields: Extractive Economies, Environmental Conflicts and Social Justice in the Global South. Read the full account here.  

6 Things You Should Know About The Paris Climate Talks

Across Latin America, and the world, communities are facing the severe effects of a changing climate. As floods destroy ancestral homes, and droughts threaten livelihoods, the urgency with which world leaders must act is becoming increasingly apparent. It is in this critical global climate that world leaders will meet this December in Paris for a pivotal meeting of the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC), also known as COP21. The conference is expected to produce a new global agreement on climate change, which we hope will set the stage for the transition to a low carbon, climate resilient economy. AIDA’s lead Climate Change attorney Andrea Rodríguez has been monitoring key elements of the ongoing climate negotiations and bringing information and analysis to policy makers and NGOs throughout the Americas. To prepare you for the barrage of news that will come out of COP21, we’ve asked Rodríguez some questions we thought you’d like to know the answers to: What is the COP21? The meeting in Paris will be the 21st yearly session of the Conference of Parties to the global climate change convention, also known as the UNFCCC. World leaders will convene in Paris with the goal of signing a new global agreement on climate change. The primary goal of the agreement will be to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limit global temperature increase to 2° C above pre-industrial levels, so we can adapt to the new changes in climate. Why is the conference so important? Climate change is a global problem that requires global solutions. No matter what governments do, if they don’t work together and take collaborative actions, we are never going to succeed at providing an effective solution. That’s why a global space that coordinates what countries do to tackle the problem is crucial for finding a way forward. The global treaty on climate change has been established for more than 20 years. What we need from COP21 is further guidance to ensure its effective implementation. If we don’t provide clarity on exactly how we’re going to achieve reduced emissions in a timely manner, we’re putting at risk the future of the planet. What are the key issues AIDA is following? AIDA is following two key components in the development of the new climate accord: climate finance and the protection of human rights in climate related activities. Climate finance entails providing money for developing countries—which are generally the least responsible for and the most impacted by climate change—to implement climate related actions effectively. COP21 needs to provide clarity on the specifics of that support—when and how will it arrive, and where will the money come from? A baseline of $100 billion per year by 2020 has already been agreed upon. But how do we make sure that goal is reached, and that is continues to grow?  And, once resources are distributed, there must be mechanisms in place to ensure those resources are used properly and effectively. AIDA is pushing governments to incorporate human rights protections into the agreement, because climate change directly affects human rights. We need to create a broad consciousness of the human rights dimensions of climate change. That includes incorporating specific language to ensure the protection of human rights in all climate actions. When governments or institutions are planning climate-focused projects, programs, plans and strategies, they must also think about how those projects will affect people and the realization of their human rights. What will the agreement mean for governments? Governments of the world need to start looking within. They must do an internal analysis to see what they have, and what they need, to ensure they can strategically implement the agreement. In order for a nation to commit to taking action, it must first make sure it has the institutional capacity and the means to succeed. What will it mean for the average person? The climate agreement is a political commitment, but it will certainly have repercussions at the local level. It will influence national policies. If leaders create an effective agreement, you will see your government shifting to low-emission, climate-resilient development. There will be better local regulations, and you will begin to see policy improvements, and eventually more climate resilient actions taken in your own communities. You will be less vulnerable to the effects of climate change. How can the average person engage on this issue? You can begin by demanding more of your government. Climate change is a political fight, and your voice can help influence outcomes. Learn what your government wants and what their expectations are—you can start now by familiarizing yourself with their INDC. Then get organized and push your government to take a more proactive stance. Familiarize yourself with climate finance, follow the negotiations, and help inform others by sharing our work. It is our duty as citizens to hold our governments responsible, and to do our part to protect and defend this beautiful planet as best we can. 

Rights of the Environment: The Pope is on our Side

In his speech before the United Nations today in New York, Pope Francis argued passionately in defense of the environment, proclaiming that the natural world should have the same rights and protection as humanity. The Pope insisted on the “rights of the environment” because, according to His Holiness: We human beings are part of the environment. We live in communion with it, since the environment itself entails ethical limits which human actions must acknowledge and respect (…) Any harm done to the environment, therefore, is harm done to humanity… In all religions, the environment is a fundmental good. The Pope also proclaimed the fundamental nature of the fight against climate change, which requires concrete and effective actions. A decisive moment in this fight will come this December at the Paris Climate Conference, where governments from around the world will meet and commit to global actions to confront the climate crisis. The Pope declared: I’m confident that the Paris Conference on climate change will secure fundamental and effective agreements.  During the UN General Assembly, before leaders and representatives of the people of the world, the Pope added: Our world demands of all government leaders a will that is effective, practical and constant, concrete steps and immediate measures for preserving and improving the natural environment.  This speech is a milestone in the struggle for the defense of the environment and against climate change. It’s yet another push to continue fighting every day for the preservation of biodiversity, ecosystems, freshwater, and the balance of life on this planet, this marvellous creation that we humans share with so many other forms of life. At AIDA we strive every day to defend the right to a healthy environment in the Americas, and in our Climate Change program we monitor and support the negotiations to reach a new global climate accord. As long as humanity and the environment suffer at the hand of irresponsible development, we will continue to fight in defense of the environment. 

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