Mining

Human Rights, Mining, Accountability and Transparency

Environmental responsibility through supply chains

This report emphasizes the importance of binding legislation for companies to comply with environmental aspects as well as human rights throughout their supply chains.The document reviews environmental impact assessments as an instrument of due diligence and corporate responsibility in their supply chains. It examines the independent monitoring of impacts of business operations, and reflects on environmental guarantees and human rights for the legislative processes of due diligence.   Download the publication 

Read more
Mining, Toxic Pollution, Climate Change

5 important advances for the environmental movement in 2021

Across the region and the world, civil society movements are becoming stronger and ensuring their voices are heard in important decision-making spaces. Actions born locally, and implemented across geography and ideology, are enabling progress on a common goal that transcends borders: the protection of our planet, and the people that most closely depend on it. The best cases and demands reach not only the highest level of their jurisdiction, but set replicable precedents for the movement at large. Given the considerable stress of the year, we wanted to take a moment to look at some of the good things that happened in 2021, all of which will help further and strengthen our work. These five advances were achieved thanks to countless activists, advocates, academics and governments from Latin America, and the world. They’re helping pave the way for accountability, the protection of human rights, and new legal tools that strengthen the global movement for climate and environmental justice.   1. Escazú Agreement enters into force On Earth Day 2021, the region celebrated the entry into force of the Escazú Agreement, the first environmental rights treaty in Latin America and the Caribbean and the only in the world to enshrine protection for environmental defenders. Escazú seeks to guarantee access to information, public participation and justice in environmental matters, all of which are necessary to facilitate the work and protect the lives of environmental defenders. It also recognizes the need for protection measures for communities in vulnerable situations. With the ratification of Argentina and Mexico, the necessary accessions for this breakthrough were achieved. The agreement is also the result of many years of work by civil society, a sector that promoted the development of Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, which is key to guaranteeing the human right to a healthy and sustainable environment. Now that it has entered into force, governments must integrate the responsibilities that Escazú establishes into their domestic systems so that defenders and communities can use it to their advantage. Only then will it truly be effective. 2. Court orders Shell to cut emissions by nearly half In a landmark ruling in the citizens' struggle for climate justice, the District Court of The Hague ordered the Anglo-Dutch company Shell to reduce its emissions by 45 percent by 2030. The verdict provides, for the first time, that a company and its subsidiaries must align their policies with global emissions reduction targets, such as those stipulated in the Paris Agreement. It sets a global precedent that was reached thanks to a lawsuit filed by several civil society organizations and more than 17,000 Dutch citizens. The main objective of the lawsuit was not to obtain financial compensation for damages, but to force the oil company to reduce its emissions. This case opened the discussion about the responsibility of companies in aggravating the climate crisis, and was a pioneer in the application of the UN guiding principles on business and human rights. Niels Hazekam, Senior Policy Advisor at Both Ends, one of the organizations involved in the lawsuit, explained the details of the Shell litigation in this AIDA webinar. This victory represents a major advance towards using judicial systems as tools to advance climate justice, with great potential for replication in other parts of the world, including Latin America. 3. International court reaffirms environmental protection in Costa Rica It is legitimate for a country to declare itself free of open-pit mining as part of its environmental protection objectives, declared the ICSID arbitration tribunal of the World Bank in response to a case filed by the mining company Infinito Gold against Costa Rica. In the arbitration, the mining company demanded the payment of $400 million dollars as compensation for the profits not received when the country annulled its mineral exploitation concession. In the early stages of the Crucitas mining project, AIDA warned the Costa Rican government of the threats it would pose to the environment and human rights. In 2008, the government issued a decree declaring the project of interest. Then, in 2011, the Supreme Court upheld a prior court decision to declare the Crucitas project illegal. Clearly unhappy with this decision, Infinito Gold began international arbitration and requested compensation for losses. This year, ICSID concluded that Costa Rica will not have to pay and clarified that the country did not deny the company access to local justice. The decision is an important step forward in the face of the growing intention of companies to sue governments for deciding to protect certain ecosystems. 4. The UN recognizes the human right to a healthy environment On October 8, in a historic day for the future of the planet, the United Nations Human Rights Council recognized that all people have a human right to a safe, healthy, clean and sustainable environment. Costa Rica, Slovenia, Maldives, Morocco and Switzerland led efforts within the Council in the latest stage of a long struggle, along with thousands of organizations, movements, businesses and advocates who joined the call for a #HealthyEnvironmentForAll. By circulating letters and inviting civil society around the world, they were able to show the legitimate interest in recognizing this right. This milestone in the history of international environmental law is the result of nearly 50 years of work by thousands of people who, since the Stockholm Declaration in 1972, have laid the groundwork for this day. Also on 8 October, the Council established the creation of a new Special Rapporteur to promote human rights in the context of climate change. This action responded to a request from civil society, in which AIDA was the meeting and coordination point in Latin America to mobilize the decision. 5. Pollution case goes to the Inter-American Court After more than 15 years, the case of human rights violations due to environmental contamination in La Oroya, Peru, reached the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. It is the first time that a case of air pollution caused by business activities in an urban context has reached the Court. The Inter-American Commission brought the case before the Court after establishing the international responsibility of the State, in response to a petition of a group of local residents—represented by AIDA and our allies—who have been chronically exposed to heavy metals from the Doe Run Peru metallurgical complex. The affected people appealed to the Inter-American Human Rights System because, despite the Peruvian Constitutional Court's order in 2006 for urgent measures to protect their rights, the State failed to comply. The presentation of the case before the Court represents a unique opportunity to restore the rights of the affected persons.   Read more and learn about AIDA’s top victories of the year in our 2021 Annual Report!  

Read more
Mining, Toxic Pollution, Human Rights

Victims of environmental contamination in La Oroya, Peru applaud the presentation of their case before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights

The decision, emitted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, represents an important opportunity to restore the rights of affected residents. It’s the first time that a case of air pollution caused by business activities in an urban context has been brought before the Court.   La Oroya, Peru. More than fifteen years after the case of environmental contamination in the city of La Oroya began, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights established the Peruvian State’s responsibility for the violation of the affected population’s rights to life, integrity, health and a healthy environment. This month, the Commission referred the case to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. "My sisters and I suffered exposure to heavy metals since we were children, having to migrate with our parents to an area far away from the contamination," said one of the victims, whose identity has been withheld due to the risk of reprisals for their role as environmental defenders. “We are thrilled to take one more step in this long process, in which so many of us have been involved. We are hopeful this will shine a ray of light on our path, and that our case will come to an end for the wellbeing of our health, so we can say 'Yes we could' in spite of so many falls.” The case originated with a petition, filed in 2005, by a group of La Oroya residents who, in the absence of responses at the national level, turned to the Commission to request precautionary measures. They subsequently denounced the violation of their rights resulting from chronic exposure to heavy metals (lead, cadmium and arsenic) from the metallurgical complex run by the company Doe Run Peru. The affected people appealed to the Inter-American Human Rights System because, although the Peruvian Constitutional Court ordered urgent measures for the protection of their rights in 2006, the State failed to comply with them. In an official communiqué on its decision, adopted on September 30, the Commission emphasized that "the State failed to comply with due diligence in its duties to regulate, supervise and oversee the behavior of the companies with respect to the rights they could affect, nor with its duty to prevent violations of these rights.” "We are happy for the news, so many years of waiting, frustration and fear. We are finally at the end,” said a mother whose parents and siblings were also affected by the contamination. “It’s a joy for all those who are present and for those who have left. We also thank the group of petitioners who have continued despite everything." The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) and the Pro Human Rights Association (APRODEH), representatives of those affected in the case, welcome the Commission's decision, as it puts an end to several years of waiting and constitutes a great opportunity to restore the rights of the affected people. "It is a milestone for the Inter-American System because it is the first case to document a situation of environmental contamination, particularly air pollution, caused by business operations in an urban context," said Liliana Avila, Senior Attorney in AIDA's Human Rights Program. For Christian Huaylinos, Coordinator of APRODEH's Legal Department, "this case would allow the Court to advance State obligations regarding the special protection of populations that may be in a particularly vulnerable situation, such as children, adolescents and senior citizens. It would also address State responsibility, the obligations derived from the right to a healthy environment as an autonomous right, and its interdependence with other fundamental rights for human existence, such as health, life and personal integrity, as well as rights such as access to information, association and justice.” The contamination suffered by the inhabitants of La Oroya, many of them minors, particularly those who have come before the Commission, has had serious negative effects on their health with consequences that continue to this day. Although the metallurgical complex has implemented environmental management instruments, given the legal requirements at the national level aimed at mitigating and remediating the contamination caused, the State has granted extensions for their implementation without Doe Run Peru fully complying with its obligations. "I was very affected by the loss of my loved ones due to a lack of adequate healthcare, which lead to death. We’ve lost many people,” said one of the inhabitants of La Oroya, who has been affected since she was a minor and had to migrate to Lima with her mother. “We want to be treated well when we go to the doctor. I’ve lost my sisters and my father; we are all affected. I remember as I child I used to get spots from the arsenic.” She requests that the Court focus on the Peruvian health system when hearing the case and learning about its impacts. In all these years, the Peruvian State has failed to oversee, regulate and remedy the damage caused by the metallurgical complex. Its actions and omissions continue to violate human rights, to the detriment of the families of La Oroya. Members of the La Oroya community who have defended their right to a healthy environment have also been subjected to harassment and accusations. In this regard, the IACHR concluded that the State did not carry out "serious and effective criminal or administrative investigations to guarantee access to justice for the victims who were subjected to threats, harassment or reprisals by Doe Run Peru workers, as a result of the complaints made about the contamination." AIDA and APRODEH express their satisfaction with the presentation of the case before the Court and reiterate their commitment to the victims of La Oroya, to the defense of human rights, and the right to a healthy environment. press contacts: Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, [email protected], +525570522107 Christian Huaylinos Camacuari (Peru), APRODEH, [email protected], +51959789232  

Read more
Mining, Freshwater Sources

International Arbitration Tribunal rules in favour of a Canadian company and puts foreign investment above Colombia's legitimate right to protect Santurbán

Bucaramanga, Bogotá, Washington, Ottawa. National and international civil society organizations are widely rejecting the decision made by the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) on September 10 in the case of Eco Oro v. Colombia, for at least three reasons: we consider that (i) it is inconsistent and reflects a profound ignorance of the socio-environmental complexity of the case; (ii) it is the result of an unfair and widely discretionary investment arbitration system that allows for arbitrary decisions made by those who oversee these cases and, (iii) increases the risk of further arbitrations being brought against the State of Colombia at the ICSID. ICSID is one of the institutions responsible for resolving disputes between States and international investors — in this case, within the context of the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. In the case of Eco Oro v. Colombia, the ICSID Tribunal concluded that, although the protection measures of the páramos adopted by Colombia were legitimate and did not constitute an expropriation of the rights of the Canadian company Eco Oro, its actions in the delimitation of the Páramo de Santurbán did violate the “minimum standard of treatment” to foreigners. The Tribunal has yet to decide on compensation for damages to Eco Oro and has asked both parties for more information to inform its decision. The Tribunal’s decision was the result of a process initiated by a supranational arbitration claim filed by the Canadian company Eco Oro against Colombia in 2016, which questioned the decisions made by the Colombian government to protect the páramos — the natural source of water for 70% of inhabitants. The Canadian investor [Eco Oro] intends to construct the Angostura gold mine in the Santurbán páramo, located in the northeast of the country. An inconsistent decision that ignores the socio-environmental complexities of the case. The majority of the Tribunal held that the decisions made by the Colombian government were in accordance with Colombian national law and were made with the legitimate aim of protecting the environment. In addition, the Tribunal recognized that the páramos are being threatened by both human intervention and climate change and that the possibility of their recovery from mining activities is very low, which is why it is necessary to protect them. As a result, the Tribunal rejected Eco Oro’s argument that the precautionary principle was not applicable, and pointed out that the Santurbán case was an example where it was, in fact, relevant. This was the grounds for rejecting one of Eco Oro’s claims that its rights had been indirectly expropriated by the State of Colombia. On the contrary, the Tribunal found that the measures adopted by the country were a legitimate exercise in environmental protection. However, when examining a second claim, the Tribunal explained that the inconsistency, hesitation and inaction of the State of Colombia in the delimitation of the Santurbán páramo had thwarted Eco Oro's investment expectations without any “apparent legitimate justification,” and had therefore not granted the investor "fair and equitable treatment" in accordance with the "minimum standard of treatment" for foreigners. This last ruling of the Tribunal is inconsistent. It ignores the socio-environmental complexity of the case and the challenges of materializing the right to environmental participation within the process of delimitation of the páramo. Although the decision recognizes that the delimitation involves managing widely disparate interests throughout the process, in the end — in a ruling far removed from the reality of Santurbán and its communities — the Tribunal took this process lightly, dismissing its complexities, and appears to have not taken it as legitimate and sufficient justification. An unpredictable, limiting and unfair arbitration system. "The Tribunal's decisions are not predictable, since decisions in one case do not bind future rulings on environmental issues.  There is no precedent set, as traditionally understood in the system. The breadth of the clauses and the arbitrators' freedom of interpretation are excessive, which is problematic not only for Colombia but for all countries in the region," said Yeny Rodriguez, a lawyer with the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). This decision allows mining investment to prevail over the Colombian State's obligation to protect the environment and the water of Colombians. We question the fact that the Tribunal has made its decision but has not judged the lack of due diligence by the Canadian company who knew from the beginning that its mining project overlapped with a páramo zone — a sensitive ecosystem protected by national law. This case demonstrates the arbitrary and overreaching nature of the supranational arbitration system, and the way in which it disciplines and punishes the governments of the Global South. It’s worth remembering that in February 2019, the Tribunal rejected the possible participation of the Santurbán Committee in the process. Uncertainty for Colombia. Carla García Zendejas, Director of the People, Land and Resources Program of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) stated, "The legal uncertainty that the supranational investment arbitration system represents for Colombia is enormous. The high levels of arbitrariness that characterizes the system leads to penalizing States for any circumstance in which expected profits are affected. And this is especially critical for Colombia, as there are other lawsuits against the country resulting from extractive projects linked to Santurbán and other fragile ecosystems. This could mean a domino effect of lawsuits and heavy penalties against Colombians." Two other lawsuits are currently underway before ICSID against the country by Canadian mining companies — Red Eagle Exploration and Galway Gold — for measures taken to protect the Santurbán páramo. There are also other lawsuits filed by Cosigo Resources, South32 Investments Limited, Gran Colombia Gold, Glencore International and Anglo American in connection to other extractive projects. We call on the Colombian State to denounce the free trade agreements and bilateral investment protection agreements to which it is party and to refrain from signing such instruments in the future. It is for these reasons above that today the Comité para la Defensa del Agua y el Páramo de Santurbán (Committee for the Defense of Water and the Páramo of Santurbán) is holding a day of protest in front of the Canadian Embassy in Bogotá, demanding that ICSID respect their legitimate fight for the defense of water, Santurbán and the páramos of Colombia. Likewise, we are also in front of Congress, demanding that the Investment Protection Agreements with the United Arab Emirates-Minesa be rejected. press contacts Comité para la Defensa del Agua y el Páramo de Santurbán, [email protected], +57 3012080622 Carla García Zendejas, Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), [email protected], +1 202 374 2550 Yeny Rodríguez Junco, Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), [email protected], +57 3107787601 Jamie Kneen, MiningWatch Canada, [email protected], +1(613) 761-2273 Manuel Pérez Rocha, Institute for Policy Studies, [email protected], +1 240 838 6623  

Read more
Indigenous Rights, Mining, Freshwater Sources

International technical assistance is consolidated to recover Uru Uru and Poopó lakes

At the request of organizations and communities, experts from the Ramsar Convention Secretariat will evaluate the degradation of the lakes and then issue technical recommendations for their recovery.   Oruro, Bolivia. From October 11 to 15, a team of experts from the Ramsar Convention Secretariat will visit the Uru Uru and Poopó lakes, located in the central-eastern part of the Bolivian altiplano, to conduct a technical analysis of their degradation and then provide concrete recommendations to the Bolivian State for the recovery of the ecosystems. In July 2019—as part of the #LagoPoopóEsVida campaign—local communities and environmental, social and women's organizations sent the Ramsar Secretariat information on the state of the lakes and requested technical assistance to assess their health. The Bolivian government then made the formal request to make the visit feasible. "We recognize the political will of national authorities to obtain international support for the environmental crisis facing the lakes, on whose preservation the livelihoods of peasant and indigenous populations depend," said Claudia Velarde, an attorney with the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). "Ramsar Advisory Missions are an effective tool offering independent and specialized advice geared toward the preservation of wetlands." Poopó is the second largest lake in Bolivia. In 2002, in order to preserve its biodiversity—which includes endemic and migratory birds and the largest number of flamingos in South America—Poopó and Uru Uru were declared a Wetland of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention, an intergovernmental treaty for the protection of these natural environments. "The Uru Uru and Poopó lakes guarantee the recharging of wells and other water sources, regulate the climate, provide habitat for birdlife, food security and sovereignty for surrounding populations, and shelter millenary cultures," said Limbert Sánchez, of the Center for Ecology and Andean Peoples (CEPA). Several factors have led to the catastrophic situation currently facing Lake Poopó, including: mining activities, which have not stopped during the pandemic and permanently generate acidic water and tons of mining waste; the diversion of tributaries like the Mauri River; the fact that the TDSP (Titicaca-Desaguadero-Poopó-Salar Water System) is not guaranteeing water for the entire basin; and the climate crisis. Cumulatively, these situations have damaged the lake and placed the life systems that depend on it at risk. "In December 2015, the water levels of Lake Poopó were completely reduced, one of the biggest environmental catastrophes in the country. Currently, what is left of the water mirror is minimal compared to historical records," corroborated Yasin Peredo, of the Center for Andean Communication and Development (CENDA). In addition to causing serious environmental damage, what’s happening to Lakes Poopó and Uru Uru is a serious violation of surrounding communities’ rights to water, health, territory, food and livelihood. "It’s with great sadness that we witness the disappearing of Lake Poopó, and the risk to our Lake Uru Uru," said Margarita Aquino, coordinator of the National Network of Women Defenders of Mother Earth (RENAMAT). "Mining contamination is stripping us of our water sources and is violating the rights of us women and our communities." Indigenous Aymara and Quechua communities depend on the health of these ecosystems, as do the Uru Murato, one of Bolivia's oldest native nations. The members of this millenary culture once lived from fishing, but the contamination of Poopó and its scarce water supply has forced them to migrate in search of other ways to survive. Don Pablo Flores, a native authority of the Uru de Puñaca community explains: "In August, authorities arrived and with them we went to the lake and found that there is no more water; the Panza Island sector is also dry. As Urus, how are we living? Before we used to go for parihuanas [Andean flamingos], but not now. In February they used to lay eggs and change their feathers. This year there are none. The flamingos are dead. The lake does not exist now. The three Uru communities are suffering; we used to live from hunting and fishing. We ask the municipal, departmental and national authorities for more attention because, so far, practically nothing has been done to save, protect and recover our lake Poopó." By including the Uru Uru and Poopó lakes as a Ramsar site, the Bolivian State committed itself to conserving the ecological characteristics of these wetlands. In this sense, the visit from the mission of experts is a key opportunity to obtain objective and specialized recommendations aimed at fulfilling this commitment. "Environmental organizations, communities and the people of Bolivia are awaiting the visit of the Ramsar Mission. We believe that the current situation of the ecosystem must be taken into account, but also the factors that continue to influence its degradation. As long as strategies to combat climate change are not adopted, mining pollution is not stopped, and the amount of water needed for the entire TDPS is not guaranteed, the critical situation of our Uru Uru and Poopó lakes cannot be reversed," said Ángela Cuenca, coordinator of the CASA Collective. PRESS CONTACTS: Victor Quintanilla (MExico), AIDA, [email protected], +5215570522107 Angela Cuenca (Bolivia), Colectivo CASA, [email protected], +59172485221 Limbert Sanchez (Bolivia), CEPA, [email protected], +59172476802 Sergio Vasquez Rojas (Bolivia), CENDA, [email protected], +59172734594  

Read more
Oceans, Mining

Reaction: IUCN Congress votes yes to a moratorium on deep-sea mining

Marseille, France - A motion calling for a moratorium on deep-sea mining was adopted with overwhelming support by the IUCN World Conservation Congress today. Among government and government agencies 81 voted for the moratorium with 18 against and 28 abstentions. Among NGOs and civil society organization the vote was 577 for, 32 against and 35 abstentions, sending a strong message to governments that there is global opposition to deep-sea mining. “We are very pleased to see so many governments, agencies and NGOs voting for a moratorium on deep-sea mining; the support has been overwhelming” said Matthew Gianni Co-Founder of the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition (DSCC).  “Member countries of the ISA, including France which hosted this Congress, need to wake up and act on behalf of civil society and the environment now, and take action in support of a moratorium”. Scientists have warned that deep-sea mining will cause large-scale, irreversible biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation if permitted to occur, particularly in the international areas of the world’s ocean. The International Seabed Authority (ISA), a multilateral regulatory body established under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1994, is debating whether to begin licensing commercial deep-sea mining in as little as two years. 167 countries plus the EU are members of the ISA. The German Environment Ministry, the government of Fiji and many other government agencies voted to support motion 069. Nauru has triggered a so-called Two Year rule at the ISA which it expects will result in the Authority issuing a commercial license to mine. 47 African countries have challenged the trigger and Sian Owen, Director of the DSCC says: "Hopefully the vote in Marseille will translate into a vote at the ISA to adopt a moratorium on deep sea mining." Motion 069 - Protection of deep-ocean ecosystems and biodiversity through a moratorium on seabed mining was sponsored by Fauna and Flora International and co-sponsored by Fundación MarViva (Costa Rica), Natural Resources Defense Council (USA), Sylvia Earle Alliance/Mission Blue (USA), Synchronicity Earth (UK), Wildlands Conservation Trust (South Africa), World Wide Fund for Nature – International. For further information Matthew Gianni, IUCN, 31 646 168 899 Sian Owen, IUCN, 31 648 502 659 Patricia Roy, 34 696 905 907  

Read more
Accountability and Transparency, Indigenous Rights, Mining

Investor Alert: Belo Sun discloses misleading information to investors regarding controversial gold mining project in the Brazilian Amazon

In a complaint to the Ontario Securities Commission, an international coalition of civil society organizations calls attention to the repeated dissemination of misleading information by Belo Sun Mining Corp (TSXV:BSX), including statements by CEO Peter Tagliamonte, downplaying socio-environmental, legal, and financial risks of the company’s “Volta Grande” project along the Xingu River.   Canadian-based mining company Belo Sun Corp.(TSXV:BSX) is disseminating misleading and incomplete information to investors about the mining project it is trying to develop on the Xingu river (Volta Grande do Xingu), Pará State, Brazil. This is the central message of a warning letter sent to the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) on July 29rd by an international coalition of civil society organizations and networks including Amazon Watch, Earthworks, Instituto Socioambiental (ISA), Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), International Rivers, MiningWatch Canada, Movimento Xingu Vivo para Sempre and Rede Xingu+. The OSC is an independent Canadian Crown corporation responsible for protecting shareholders and investors from unfair, improper and fraudulent practices from companies and industries. Drafted by a legal team and supported by independent technical and scientific analysis, the complaint letter challenges recent statements by Belo Sun’s CEO Peter Tagliamonte. In a speech at the Prospectors & Developers Association of Canada (PDAC) event in March 2021, the largest mining convention in the world, Tagliamonte cited the Covid-19 pandemic as the justification for repeated delays in the environmental licencing of the Volta Grande mine, claiming that the mining project was "fully authorized" and that construction was expected to begin at the end of 2021. Similar comments have been made in recent company statements, and by Tagliamonte himself in other occasions. According to the complaint, such declarations are patently false. There are seven public civil actions active in Brazilian courts asking for the suspension of permits and of the licencing process, filed by Federal and State public prosecutors’ and defenders’ offices. These lawsuits focus specifically on irregularities in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), and the lack of free, prior and informed consultation and consent with Indigenous peoples and other traditional communities. The coalition argues that there is overwhelming evidence that Belo Sun breached the Securities Act disclosure requirements, which requires companies to disclose material changes “forthwith” (without delay). Companies must disclose factual and updated data to keep investors well informed. Misleading information disclosed by Belo Sun Mining Corp. According to the complaint, while the company acknowledges the generic risks associated with the licensing process, it fails to disclose the concrete details of the legal actions and suspensions in play regarding its project, relying on investors' lack of knowledge concerning licensing legislation in Brazil. One example refers specifically to the suspension of its construction licence (LI), due to the lack of "free and informed consultation" of Indigenous peoples. In its more recent Corporate Update, Belo Sun states that "it continues to advance financial discussions with various groups in preparation for the commencement of construction following the lifting of the suspension of the construction license (LI)". "The company has not even started a consultation process, - which is now delayed by COVID-19 - and it is already advertising the lifting of the suspension, as if it was just a matter of time", says Marcella Ribeiro, attorney from AIDA's Human Rights and the Environment Program. "The company is not in a position to guarantee the results of the consultation process, as negotiations around consent are time-consuming and will invariably result in major material changes to the project. None of that is being disclosed properly to investors", she adds. Among the risks associated with investments in Belo Sun, the complaint highlights the history of judicial proceedings; conflict around the project; the flaws and gaps in the environmental impact assessment; and the violation of the Indigenous Peoples’ right to prior consultation. The downplaying of environmental and social risks by the company’s studies and impact assessments has sounded the alarm among communities in the Volta Grande region, already affected by the Belo Monte dam. A series of independent technical studies challenge Belo Sun’s statements regarding impacts to water resources, to fauna and flora, and regarding dam safety. The company’s refusal to acknowledge impacts in Indigenous territories along the Xingu river has led to the court decision that suspended the installation licence of the Volta Grande project in 2017 until "free and informed consultation" was carried out. There are also increasing accounts of intimidation and harassment against project opponents, which demonstrate a much more complex and contentious situation as a result of the project than what has been disclosed by the company, the complaint stresses. The coalition concludes that "Belo Sun has failed to fully communicate to current and potential investors about the complex nature of its project" which has a "direct implication for delays, and raises fundamental questions about the project’s viability".  The letter delivered to the OSC aims to increase visibility to the many irregularities of the project and to raise awareness among current and potential investors about the major reputational and legal risks attached to the project, at a moment when heightened attention is focused on the Amazon rainforest and its capacity to provide environmental services and mitigate climate change. About Belo Sun’s Volta Grande Project Proposed for development along the Volta Grande (Big Bend), a stretch of the Xingu River (a major tributary of the Amazon) that is one of the most biodiverse locations on the planet, Belo Sun’s project would be the largest open pit gold mine in Brazil. The region is home to indigenous people such as Juruna (Yudjá), Arara, and Xikrin, along other isolated Indigenous and riverside communities. From the outset, Belo Sun has faced numerous lawsuits regarding the Volta Grande Project filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office, the State Public Prosecutor's Office, the State Public Defender's Office, and the Union Public Defender's Office. All of these lawsuits refer to the multiple flaws in its licensing process and in the project’s technical studies. Among other things, the lawsuits seek the cancellation of the company's licences and the suspension of the project's licensing process. One of them resulted in a court decision, still valid, to suspend Belo Sun’s construction licence. press contacts Viviana Herrera, MiningWatch Canada, ​[email protected] Camila Rossi, Amazon Watch, [email protected] Cecilia Garcia, International Rivers, [email protected] Victor Quintanilla, AIDA, [email protected]  

Read more
Climate Change, Capacity Building, Mining

Webinar "A Material Transition: Mining and the Renewable Energy Transition"

Presenting A Material Transition, a report from War on Want investigating the impacts of an increased demand for the minerals required to move away from fossil fuels, and what can be done to address global supply chains and reduce unsustainable demand. PanelistsAndy Whitmore: Researcher specialising in extractive industries and indigenous peoples rights. Co-chair, trustee and founding member of London Mining Network.Sebastian Ordóñez Muñoz: Colombian migrant based in the UK. Senior Programme Officer for Latin America, War on Want.Moderator: Andrés Ángel, Scientific Advisor, AIDA. Recording Presentations1. Introductory presentation: 2. Presentation of Andy Whitmore: Reference materialA Material Transition: Exploring supply and demand solutions for renewable energy mineralsImpactos a perpetuidad. El legado de la minería

Read more
Oceans, Mining

What you should know about deep-sea mining

Deep-sea mining consists of the exploitation of mineral deposits located deeper than 200 meters in the ocean. Although interest in the technique dates back to 1960, initial ideas were never implemented due to factors such as low metal prices, relatively easy access to raw materials in the countries of the Global South, multiple technical difficulties, and legal uncertainty. On the ocean floor, there are three types of resources of great economic interest: polymetallic nodules, ferromagnesian crusts, and seafloor massive sulfides generated by hydrothermal vents. Currently, interest in these resources has regained strength due to geopolitical changes and greater demand from the non-conventional renewable energy sector. To date, 30 mining exploration contracts have been confirmed in the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian oceans involving 21 contractors from around the world among companies, government authorities, and science and technology institutes. Unfortunately, we know very little about the ecosystems on the ocean floor and the real impacts of this type of mining. Some scientists believe that the recovery of the habitat would take decades to centuries and that, in some cases, the damage could be irreversible since certain environments are unique. Socio-ecological impacts Although ocean mining could stimulate the economy, the social impacts it entails must be emphasized, especially for the most vulnerable local communities, which depend on natural resources for their livelihoods. Ocean mining has been associated with dilemmas such as foreign interference, cultural disruption, unequal distribution of wealth, loss of access to natural hunting grounds, and alterations in the distribution and migration of species, which would generate variations in the quantity and quality of fishing. Ecological impacts include, among others: an increase of particulate matter in the water, greater mortality of organisms, habitat destruction, the risk of encountering unknown bacteria and viruses in the oceans, the arrival of invasive species through extraction equipment, and the risk of accidental spills caused by the inputs used. The environmental management of this activity is also a concern. The agency in charge of regulating ocean mining is the International Seabed Authority (ISA), founded in 1994 by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. ISA has jurisdiction over the seabed and subsoil in international waters. It is currently developing a proposal for regulations for ocean mining, which has been faced with multiple challenges. The Deep Sea Conservation Coalition—an alliance of more than 80 organizations that has been operating since 2004 with the objective of protecting the deep sea—questioned whether the proposal establishes that the form of environmental monitoring should depend on ISA or on the contractors. As early as 2018, the coalition stated that independent scientific review and assessment is key to all environmental documents, especially Environmental Impact Assessments and Environmental Monitoring and Management Plans. It is pertinent to mention that, in addition to regulating mining in international waters, ISA is responsible for ensuring the ecological protection of the oceans from the potential harmful effects of activities developed or related to the seabed. The fact that those promoting the projects may carry out environmental monitoring implies the risk of environmental problems due to conflicts of interest. Looking ahead The ocean floor is the largest living area on our planet. There, ecosystems of splendid beauty exist, of which we know practically nothing, and which could suffer irreversible damage from deep-sea mining projects, scientists and conservationists have warned. Healthy oceans play an integral role in global climate regulation and are essential to ensuring food security and livelihoods for millions of people around the world. In addition, significant ignorance about how the deep ocean works make any attempt at Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and future projections difficult. In fact, on almost every new dive, new species are discovered. And much remains to be learned about the relationship between the ocean floor and the climate crisis, water acidification, and pressures from anthropogenic (human-induced) activities. Without adequate knowledge of species, ecosystems, ecological processes, and their connections, EIAs cannot be effective. The concept of the common heritage of mankind should be central to any proposal. Besides, it would be prudent to adopt legal protection measures such as the Precautionary Principle, as well as engage in prior exploration and research activities. With all this in mind, ISA has an immense responsibility before the planet and humanity. For the sake of a sustainable future and the natural legacy of future generations, ISA must ensure adequate protection of the oceans. Should deep-sea mining finally be permitted on the high seas, they must pay close attention to prevention and mitigation measures using a precautionary and adaptive approach, in collaboration with other international bodies.  

Read more
Indigenous Rights, Mining, Toxic Pollution

OECD to investigate human rights abuses filed against the owners of Cerrejón coal mine; BHP, Anglo American and Glencore

Parallel complaints also filed in Ireland against state owned-company for purchasing coal and Dublin-based sales wing of mining enterprise.   Multiple National Contact Points (NCPs) of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) will begin the process of investigating three international mining giants (BHP, Anglo American and Glencore) and Ireland’s state-owned energy provider, the ESB, over serious human rights abuses and devastating environmental pollution at the Cerrejón coal mine in Colombia. Parallel complaints were filed simultaneously in Australia, Ireland, Switzerland and the UK by the Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) with the support of international development agency Christian Aid Ireland as well as Colombian and international human rights and environmental NGOs - CINEP, CAJAR, AIDA, ABColombia and ASK. If successful, the three companies which jointly own the Cerrejón mine will have to take steps to comply with the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, including progressively closing down the mine in full and environmental restoration. The complaints against the mining giants also call for the full compensation of communities for the harms they have suffered.  The complaints outline how the Cerrejón mine, one of the largest open-pit mines in the world, is linked to the forced displacement of indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities and the widespread, persistent and extreme pollution of the air and water in the vicinity of the mine. High concentrations of harmful metals, which can cause diseases such as cancer, were found by Colombia’s Constitutional Court to exist in the blood of those living nearby. The complaints point to Cerrejón’s failure to comply with multiple Colombian court judgments against it. In September, several prominent UN human rights experts called for some of the mine’s operations to be suspended following a request to intervene by Wayuu indigenous people. The complaints allege that the parent companies of the Cerrejón mine, as its joint owners, are responsible under the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises for the harms caused by its operations. Separate complaints have also been lodged against Dublin-based Coal Marketing Company (CMC), which is the exclusive marketer of coal from the Colombian mine, as well as Ireland’s Electricity Supply Board (ESB), which has been a major purchaser of the mine’s coal. In 2019, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination recommended that Ireland “consider stopping purchasing coal from the Cerrejón mine”.  All five complaints have been lodged with the relevant National Contact Points for the OECD, which are tasked with ensuring that companies comply with the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. Director of GLAN Dr Gearóid Ó Cuinn said: “These parallel complaints in four different countries point to a systematic failure to respect basic human rights standards from the extraction, to the marketing, to the purchasing of Cerrejon coal. The long-standing abuses at the mine have been so egregious that there is no way for enterprises to respect human rights law and do business with Cerrejón.” Sorley McCaughey of Christian Aid Ireland said: “We see the impact that corporate human rights abuses are having in every corner of the world and the Cerrejón case underscores the inadequacy of voluntary guidelines for multinational companies. Governments globally, including the UK and Ireland, must introduce mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation for companies to ensure they do not undermine the human rights of workers or the communities in which they work.” Rosa María Mateus Parra, lawyer with CAJAR, a Colombian human rights organisation and signatory to the complaints, said: “This is a striking example of the role played by large multinational companies in fuelling injustice. The people of La Guajira have borne the huge social and environmental costs of the mine, while harmful fossil fuel coal is exported around the world in the midst of the climate crisis and a small number of companies record huge profits.” Notes for editors If upheld the complaints filed in Australia, Switzerland and the UK would require joint-owners BHP, Glencore and Anglo American to close down the Cerrejón mine and compensate the affected communities for the harms it has caused. If upheld the separate complaint in Ireland against Dublin-based CMC would require it to stop selling Cerrejón coal. The complaint was submitted by Global Legal Action Network (GLAN), supported by Christian Aid Ireland, the Centro de Investigación y Educación Popular (CINEP), the Colectivo de Abogados ‘José Alvear Restrepo’ (CAJAR), Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), ABColombia and ASK - Arbeitsgruppe Schweiz Kolumbien. The Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) is a non-profit organisation that works to pursue innovative legal actions across borders to challenge powerful actors involved in human rights violations and systemic injustice by working with affected communities. GLAN has offices in the UK (London) and Ireland (Galway) | @glan_law | www.glanlaw.org.  press contacts: Victor Quintanilla (México), AIDA, [email protected], +5215570522107 Dr Gearóid Ó Cuinn (Director), GLAN, [email protected], +447521203427   

Read more