Indigenous Rights

September 16 2010 Human Rights, Indigenous Rights

CEMDA and AIDA Present Report to Inter-American Court of Human Rights: Environmental Advocates Are Key to Protecting Human Rights and Are At-Risk in Mexico

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Sept. 15, 2010 CONTACTS: Juan Carlos Arjona Estévez, CEMDA (Mexico) +52-55-5286-332, [email protected], Skype: juancarlosarjonaestevez Jacob Kopas, AIDA, (Bogota) +57-1-338-1277, [email protected], Skype: jacobkopas Mexico City, Mexico – On September 10, 2010, the Centro Mexicano de Derecho Ambiental (CEMDA) and the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) presented information about the important work of environmental advocates in protecting human rights, and about the trend of increasing attacks against such advocates in Mexico. In a "friend of the court" brief submitted to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of Cabrera Garcia and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, the two organizations demonstrated how attacks against Teodoro Cabrera and Montiel Flores relating to their work as environmental advocates impedes effective environmental protection. "In Mexico, it is still very difficult to protect the right to a healthy environment due to the lack of, or in some cases, the ineffectiveness of judicial protections," emphasized Juan Carlos Arjona Estevez, coordinator of CEMDA’s Human Rights and Environment Program. "This makes the pattern of aggressions against environmental advocates even more troubling—it affects the rights of everyone in Mexico." In 1998, Mr. Cabrera and Mr. Montiel founded the Organization of Peasant Ecologists of the Sierra de Petatlán and Coyuca de Catalán (OCESP), to protect the forests in Guerrero state from uncontrolled and illegal timber extraction. A year later, they were victims of arbitrary detentions and torture due to their work as environmental advocates. Despite being released in 2001, they had to leave their community because of continued threats. Nine years after their release, the Inter-American Court heard Montiel and Cabrera’s claims against Mexican authorities for failing to compensate them for harms or to guarantee their personal safety. The ineffectiveness of the legal system for protecting the environment in Mexico led Mr. Cabrera and Mr. Montiel to found their organization, OCESP. However, the threats and harassments they suffered, and the lack of response from authorities, created a generalized fear that prevented them and others from defending their community’s right to a healthy environment. Later, this pattern grew to include attacks against environmental advocates throughout Mexico. This situation forced Mr. Cabrera and Mr. Montiel to limit their work as environmental advocates and curtail the work of OCESP. Jacob Kopas, a lawyer with AIDA considers that "This case is emblematic for the region, and highlights the need for governments to recognize the value and importance of the work done by environmental advocates, and to also guarantee protection for their rights." "With this report, we are seeking to help strengthen protection of the right to a healthy environment in Mexico and safeguard the people who defend this human right" said Samantha Namnum, director of CEMDA’s Mexico City office. "This is why we asked the Inter-American Court to recognize the important work of environmental defenders and to declare that Mexico, in addition to other human rights, also violated Mr. Cabrera and Mr. Montiel’s right to freedom of association as a result of the arbitrary detentions and tortures they suffered and the impunity surrounding those events."

November 05 2009 Climate Change, Human Rights, Indigenous Rights

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Examines Impacts of Large Dams in Latin America

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Examines Impacts of Large Dams in Latin America Washington, D.C. - On November 2, 2009 the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights will hold a hearing on the impacts that large dams in Latin America have on human rights and the environment. Dam-affected peoples and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) will present information showing that Latin-American governments are building dams at great social, environmental and economic costs, often disregarding national and international laws and violating human rights. “More than a million people have already been affected by large dams in Latin America, many of whom are from indigenous and small farming communities,” said Rafael González, Board Member of the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). “More than 300 new dams are being planned throughout the region, which could destroy the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of people and harm precious ecosystems.” The over 40 national and international NGOs requesting this hearing will present findings from AIDA’s forthcoming publication, Large Dams in the Americas: Is the Cure Worse than the Disease?, to the IACHR documenting the poor track record of dam construction in the hemisphere. They will also encourage the Inter-American Commission to make recommendations to member States on how to avoid major environmental damages and human rights violations. “The granting of this hearing by the IACHR is a positive demonstration of their interest in examining the link between large dams and human rights violations,” said Astrid Puentes co-Director of AIDA. “We hope that the IACHR will begin an investigation and recommend that States strictly enforce international standards and human rights law, to avoid major environmental impacts and human rights tragedies.” The human rights impacts of large dams are numerous. Affected communities and stakeholders—mostly indigenous, fishing and farming communities—rarely have the opportunity to participate in decisions on dam developments, and frequently are subjected to intimidation, harassment and even military actions when they oppose projects. Families displaced by large dams often receive inadequate or no compensation. Equally troubling are poorly developed resettlement plans that do not account for lost livelihoods or lack of access to medical attention, fishing areas and farming land, leaving families worse off as a result. Large dams have also had profound environmental impacts. Enormous reservoirs inundate biodiverse wildlife habitats and fertile farmlands. Dams and river diversions also harm fish populations, and are the main cause for the extinction or endangerment of one-third of the world’s freshwater fish species. “We are not against development.” said Father Gabriel Espinoza, spokesperson for communities affected by the El Zapotillo dam in Mexico, and who will speak before the Inter-American Commission. “We understand that a country’s needs for energy and water should be met as a fundamental right of all peoples.” “But governments cannot proceed without consulting and providing information for local communities, according to national and international law. That would violate our fundamental freedoms and disrespect our lives, history, culture and livelihoods.” “There are often better, cheaper, and less-destructive alternatives to building a large dam, whether to meet energy or water needs, or to reduce the impacts from floods,” said Monti Aguirre of International Rivers. “Small-scale, decentralized water supplies and new renewable energy sources, as well as large-scale efficiency and conservation plans are only some of the options available. Unfortunately, governments and corporations frequently ignore these choices or dismiss them out-of-hand when a large dam project is on the table.” The World Commission on Dams, in its ground-breaking report on large dams, Dams and Development, recommends using a comprehensive, participatory process to evaluate needs for water and energy and to assess the full range of available options. The hearing is open to the public and will take place on November 2, 2009, from 5:30 to 6:15 p.m., Room Rubén Darío, 8th Floor of the OAS General Secretariat Building, 1889 F Street NW, Washington, D.C. Guidelines for press coverage of public hearings at http://www.cidh.org/Prensa/guidelinespresscoverageENGL.htm. Opportunities for interviews with presenters after the hearing. For more information on large dams in the Americas: International Rivers, Redlar

October 17 2010 Climate Change, Human Rights, Indigenous Rights

Large dams in the Americas: Is the cure worse than the disease?

Large dams consistently cause severe, and often irreversible, environmental and social damage. Their construction is also often associated with violations of international human rights and environmental laws. AIDA’s report Large Dams in the Americas: Is the Cure Worse than the Disease? explores these grave impacts and explains the existing international standards that should be applied to protect the environment and human rights. The report also exposes the dangers of using large hydroelectric dams to meet increasing energy demands in Latin America. To promote greater protection of human rights, AIDA gave testimony based on this dams report to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) at a general hearing on November 2, 2009. AIDA has also shared the report’s findings with international experts, policymakers, non-governmental organizations, affected local communities, and international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank. Furthermore, AIDA staff presented legal strategy workshops at "Rivers for Life 3", an international meeting of dam-affected communities in Temacapulín, Mexico, October 1-7, 2010. The previous month, AIDA staff represented Latin America on a panel of water experts at World Water Week in Stockholm. In Large Dams in the Americas, AIDA examines five large hydroelectric dams in violation of a range of environmental and human rights laws: Yacyretá in Argentina and Paraguay, Río Madeira in Bolivia and Brazil, Baba in Ecuador, Chan-75 in Panama, and La Parota in Mexico. Through these case studies, AIDA illustrates how governments generally disregard important international obligations and standards, such as the need to conduct proper environmental and social impact assessments. In the report, we also explain the significant social and environmental impacts caused by large dams. We discuss how families suffer when they are displaced or forcefully evicted by dams and lose valuable farmland, water sources, or traditional fishing areas. We document how the people most harmed by large dams are those from vulnerable populations, including indigenous, afro-descendent and poor farming communities. We also describe how large dams typically harm the environment by flooding valuable ecosystems, dramatically altering natural flows of water, disrupting wildlife habitat, and obstructing the migratory paths of perse species, among other impacts. In addition, Large Dams in the Americas dispels the myth that dams are a source of "green energy". Even though dams do not rely on fossil fuels to generate electricity, they still contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. Hydroelectric dams create enormous reservoirs of river water that submerge valleys and lead to the decomposition of vast amounts of organic matter. As the trees and other biomasses break down, they release carbon dioxide and methane, the same greenhouse gases that are created by "dirty" technologies like coal-fired electricity plants. Turbines also liberate methane trapped in deep water and emit carbon dioxide as they release pressure from the reservoir. In tropical regions, dams can emit as much as eleven times the amount of greenhouse gases that a conventional power plant of equivalent size would emit. Given the negative impacts of large dams, AIDA's report recommends that policymakers seriously consider alternatives that protect human rights and our natural ecosystems, save energy, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Suggested alternatives include: improving energy efficiency, reducing demand, making better use of sustainable energy sources, investing in energy-efficient technologies and infrastructure, and removing barriers that hinder technology exchange between nations. AIDA wrote this report in collaboration with our participating organizations, CEMDA, CEDHA, ECOLEX and Earthjustice, as well as International Rivers, Sobrevivencia, and the Association for Conservation and Development (ACD). By educating governments, policymakers, communities, and other key players about large dams, we seek to encourage authorities to investigate the matter and apply our recommendations on how to implement dam projects in compliance with international laws. Spanish-Language Report Available Here

September 05 2007 Human Rights, Indigenous Rights

Human Rights Body Calls on Peru to Protect Citizens from Contamination by American-Owned Smelter

For immediate release: September 5, 2007 PRESS CONTACTS: Astrid Puentes, AIDA (+5255) 52120141 [email protected] Martin Wagner, (510) 550-6700 [email protected] Human Rights Body Calls on Peru to Protect Citizens from Contamination by American-owned Smelter Oakland, CA; Lima, Peru – The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) has asked the government of Peru to take immediate steps to protect the health of inhabitants of La Oroya, Peru, who suffer severe health impacts due to contamination from a smelter owned by American billionaire Ira Rennert. Rennert’s company, Doe Run Peru, owns and operates the smelter. La Oroya residents suffer health problems related to emissions of lead, arsenic, cadmium, sulfur dioxide and other pollution from the smelter. In 2006, the Blacksmith Institute identified La Oroya as one of the ten most polluted places in the world (http://www.blacksmithinstitute.org/ten.php). The Commission ordered Peru to conduct comprehensive medical examinations to determine the extent of the injury to local people and to provide medical treatment to those who need it. The Commission acted in response to a petition submitted by lawyers from the Peruvian Society for Environmental Law (SPDA), the Inter-American Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), Earthjustice, and the Center for Human Rights and Environment. The petition was filed on behalf of a group of La Oroya residents claiming that Peru’s failure to control the smelter pollution violates their human rights, and especially those of the most vulnerable population – the children impacted by the severe lead contamination. “Controlling contamination from the smelter is crucial to protect the rights and lives of these people,” said Astrid Puentes of AIDA. “The Commission’s action confirms that neither Peru nor the company have taken adequate steps to protect health and human rights in La Oroya,” she added. Since 1999, the Government of Peru has known that almost all the children living near the complex suffer from lead poisoning, yet has failed to remedy the situation. A March 2005 study showed that 99 percent of the children tested had blood lead levels vastly exceeding the safe limits established by the US EPA and the World Health Organization. “We are celebrating, with the hope that we will finally have positive results for the protection of the health of our children, and ourselves,” said one La Oroya petitioner, who, like all the petitioners, has asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation by company workers. “In calling on Peru to protective the people of La Oroya, the Commission is indicating its support for people throughout the hemisphere who are threatened by extreme toxic contamination,” said Earthjustice’s Martin Wagner. “The Commission is acknowledging that this kind of pollution violates human rights, and that international law thus requires governments to prevent such tragedies and to take steps to remedy them when they happen. The Commission’s request is based on its interpretation of Peru’s international legal obligations, and it is the government’s responsibility to satisfy those obligations.” “We hope to see the transparent, effective, and rapid implementation of these precautionary measures by Peruvian government authorities” declared Carlos Chirinos, from the SPDA. “The government has moved far too slow in addressing this health crisis,” he added. The Commission’s decision is a preliminary step in its consideration of the petition from the residents of La Oroya. “The Commission has clearly decided that the people in La Oroya cannot afford to await the outcome of the full petition process,” said Wagner. “No matter what the details of its final decision, the Commission is obviously convinced that rights are being violated and the government must act now.”

June 01 2006 Large Dams, Indigenous Rights, Freshwater Sources

Legal victory! - Peruvian Constitutional Tribunal Orders the Government to Address the Public Health Emergency in La Oroya

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 12, 2006 Contact: Dr. Anna Cederstav, Earthjustice/AIDA, (English) (510) 457-4010 [email protected] Dr. Carlos Chirinos, SPDA, (Spanish) (+511) 441-9171 [email protected] Hunter Farrell, MOSAO/Technical Roundtable, English (+511) 97094921 Legal victory! Peru Supreme Court Demands Government Protect Public Health from Doe Run Smelter in La Oroya LIMA, PERU — Peru's Supreme Court has given the Ministry of Health 30 days to declare a health emergency in La Oroya, and to put in place an emergency health plan for the city, widely considered one of the most contaminated cities in the Western Hemisphere. The city is the home of a multi-metal smelter, owned and operated by the Doe Run Company of St. Louis, Missouri, one of the companies owned by Mr. Ira Rennert and the Renco group of New York. While the ruling named the Health Ministry as the agency primarily responsible for protecting the health of La Oroya's population, it also called on the Doe Run Company to reduce toxic contamination and protect public health in La Oroya. The ruling requires the Health Ministry to pay special attention to health risks faced by children and pregnant women. “This is great news for the citizens of La Oroya, who have received justice from the Courts, and who -- in spite of having been threatened and persecuted for their role in demanding health protection in La Oroya -- had faith that justice would prevail,” said Dr. Carlos Chirinos, the attorney with the Peruvian Society for Environmental Law responsible for bringing the case almost four years ago. An initial victory in the lower court had been immediately appealed by Peru's Health Ministry, forcing the plaintiffs to bring the suit to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruling allows 30 days for the Health Ministry to declare a health emergency in La Oroya, an action demanded by the Movement for Health in La Oroya (MOSAO) since 2003. A spokeswoman for the group, Dr. Eliana Ames, expressed satisfaction with the ruling: "This is the first time the Peruvian Government has acted to defend the health of all La Oroya's children and population." Earlier efforts of Peru's Environmental Health Authority (DIGESA) were limited to a few hundred of La Oroya's estimated 10,000 children, more than 97% of whom suffer from excessive levels of lead, according to last year's study by the St. Louis University's Public Health School. A related request to protect health by issuing precautionary measures for La Oroya is still pending before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. This case was brought by AIDA (Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense), Earthjustice, CEDHA (Center for Human Rights and Environment), and Carlos Chirinos.