Mining

Webinar "A Just Transition: Why should industrialized countries reduce their consumption of raw materials? The case of Germany"

The global expansion of renewable energies, electric mobility and digitalization will massively increase the demand for raw materials. This implies the risk of damage to human rights and the environment, as well as an intensification of geopolitical tensions over these resources. In this context, a globally inequitable distribution of raw material consumption would jeopardize the sustainable and fair development of the countries of the Global South. In this webinar, we presented the proposals of an NGO network in Germany to achieve a reduction in the consumption of raw materials and to include the perspectives of producer countries, supporting their call for a "change in raw materials" (Rohstoffwende).   panelist Rebecca Heinz: Policy Advisor – Resource Policy at Germanwatch.   recording   Presentations 1. Opening presentation:   2. Presentation of Rebecca Heinz, Germanwatch:   additional material Germanwatch report 12 Reasons for a Primary Resource Transition(in German)   More informatioN To learn more about the just transition proposal presented at the seminar, write to [email protected]  

Preserving the legacy of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, Heart of the World

Learning from Mendoza, Argentina: “Water is not negotiable

Near the end of 2019, the citizens of Mendoza, Argentina united in one of the province’s most important social manifestations. Their objective was clear: to defend their water. People of all ages—members of NGOs, environmental assemblies, anti-mining movements, scientists and academics—took to the streets to demand that the local government reverse the modification of Law 7722, known as "guardian of the water" or "the people’s law." The law is fundamental for the protection of water in Mendoza because it prohibits the use of cyanide, mercury, sulfuric acid and other toxic chemicals in mining activities—all of which seriously contaminate rivers, lakes and other natural water sources. Enacted on June 21, 2007, this law resulted from a long struggle by civil society. A step back in environmental protection The government intended to modify Law 7722 with another regulation, Law 9209, which allowed for "the use of chemical substances [including cyanide], mixtures or dissolutions of them, to ensure the sustainability of the [mining] project.” The justification for eliminating the prohibition on the use of cyanide and other toxic elements was "to guarantee the sustainability of the use of natural resources, with special emphasis on the protection of water resources and to ensure compliance with mining activities.” The use of cyanide in legal mining is becoming less frequent due to the risks involved in its manufacture, transport and use. Cyanide compounds are highly toxic in their gaseous form or when dissolved in water. Considering that the limit of cyanide in drinking water for safe human consumption is four drops per liter, the concentrations used in mining present high risks. In addition, there is abundant evidence of cyanide spills and losses from mining facilities during transport, and multiple cases of mass fatalities of wildlife near mining facilities, particularly migratory birds. The legislative amendment sought to make the procedures for environmental control and monitoring more flexible, by establishing that it was no longer obligatory for the Environmental Impact Statement of a mining project to be ratified by law. This undermined the effectiveness of Law 7722. These changes, promoted by the government of Mendoza, violated environmental protection principles contained in Argentina’s Constitution, among them sustainability and other national regulations that the provinces are obliged to comply with and enrich. For example, article 41 of the Constitution states that "all inhabitants have the right to a healthy, balanced environment, suitable for human development and for productive activities to satisfy present needs without compromising those of future generations; and they have the duty to preserve it." The citizen's response The social response to this modification—which intended to give free rein to the use of substances with a high environmental impact—surpassed all precedents. By successfully reversing an initiative already approved by Mendoza's legislators, it became an example for the entire region. The largest demonstrations in Mendoza's history began on December 22. Under the slogans "water is not negotiable" and "water is worth more than gold," the people of Mendoza organized to express their disapproval of the new law. The following day, 50,000 people gathered in front of the Provincial Government House after a journey of more than 100 kilometers, which began in the town of San Carlos, in the Uco Valley. They demanded: Law 7722 is not to be touched. Despite this widespread popular rejection, the Governor of Mendoza enacted the reform. Then, thousands of self-convoked neighbors gathered at kilometer zero—between San Martín and Garibaldi Streets—in the provincial capital to demand the law’s repeal. On December 26, faced with constant and growing social pressure, the Governor announced that he would not enact the new law. That palliative measure was deemed unconvincing and mobilizations intensified. The Governor then decided to reverse the amendment to Law 7722. On Friday the 27th, he announced the reform’s repeal, which finally happened on Monday the 30th. The case of Mendoza teaches a valuable lesson to all Latin American countries: When citizens are aware of the importance of nature and the scale of the dangers it faces, they will not yield. Socio-environmental conflicts are not only a response to those who have control over natural resources, but also to their effects on a complex social network. For humans and also for other beings, nature is a formative part of our identity, culture and customs. We are part of it and it is part of us. It is a living and interconnected network. That is why we must be its main defenders. The prompt and necessary updating of the concept of "sustainable development" is one of the challenges of Environmental Law in the 21st century. We mustn’t promote development that attacks nature and ignores human rights.   Learn more about the use of cyanide in mining (in Spanish).  

Ecuador bets on a mining boom, at the expense of nature

In southeast Ecuador, in the heart of its Amazon, stands an imposing mountain massif that stretches more than 160 kilometers in length: the Condor Mountain Range, which, once largely unknown, retains an expansive intact and unexplored territory. In this area of vital importance for life, science and conservation, an open-pit copper mine known as the Mirador project, with an expected lifespan of 30 years, began operating in July. The launch of the project marks the beginning of large-scale mining in Ecuador, with which the government intends to sustain the economy and leave behind its dependence on oil. This is a sad novelty because large-scale mining involves the risk of enormous environmental damages, which are most serious in ecosystems of great biodiversity and proximity to water sources such as the Condor Range, where indigenous and peasant communities also live. This impulse toward extractive activity contradicts the progress made in 2008, when Ecuador was the first country in the world to recognize the rights of nature in its Constitution. As the Amazon burns in flames, and takes our future with it, Ecuador has a responsibility to change course. The nation must serve as an example for other countries of the Amazon Basin, and the world, of the effective protection of the rainforest and those who depend on it. The resources we must conserve "This country lacks resources." Based on these words, the Mirador project and the presence of the mining industry in Ecuador has been intensified without precedent. They were said by spokespersons of the Chinese company Ecuacorriente (in charge of the mining concession) and echoed, in turn, by government representatives. But what will happen to the biodiversity and environmental services of the priceless Condor Range? These Amazonian mountains protect cloud forests and páramos (high mountain wetlands), both natural carbon sinks. They are home to more than 2,000 species of flora, including one of the few carnivorous plants in Ecuador, and hosts 613 species of birds. According to studies, there are another 2,000 plant species to be discovered in this unique environment. It is there that excavations of 300 to 500 meters deep will be carried out to access subsoil minerals, and where risky dams will be built to deposit tons of waste. The damages are already occurring. The company confirmed that 1,422 hectares of forest have been cleared for the project. And local organizations have denounced serious legal and constitutional violations surrounding the project. The discourse of large profits in store for the country from the exploitation and sale of subsoil resources has gained strength in recent months. Official data shows that currently 7.5% of the territory is concessioned for mineral exploration, and the government is analyzing the granting of new concessions. By 2020, the government plans to have a map of the new areas where mining will be permitted. These plans ignore the perpetual impacts of large-scale mining, including impacts on the landscape and damage to water quality. In the case of Mirador, the project has already caused the diversion of the Tundayme River, just to name one of its impacts, recognized as irreversible by the company itself. "Be coherent, stop using cell phones and bicycles and other objects made from materials extracted from the mines," challenged Vice President Otto Sonnenholzner, one of mining's biggest promoters, to those who oppose the projects. "I propose another challenge: you stop using water and food," replied Yaku Perez, a defender of water and prefect of the province of Azuay. The above is the clearest metaphor of what is at stake with the blind advance of open-pit mining in Ecuador. The climate crisis demands a new vision of development The accelerated move towards large-scale mining in Ecuador means acting negligently in the face of the global climate crisis, which forces us to change our development model this decade in order to achieve the goals of mitigation and adaptation. The international scientific community warned in 2018 that we only have a dozen years to maintain global warming at a maximum of 1.5°C (with respect to the pre-industrial era) and that exceeding that limit would make the risks of droughts, floods and extreme heat worse. This requires unprecedented transitions in sectors such as energy and industrial systems. Boosting large-scale mining is reversing and deepening the development model that has caused the climate emergency. It means destroying natural carbon sinks such as those in the Condor Mountain Range and the Amazon as a whole. Ecuador can and must take a new step forward. It must, as it did in 2008 with the recognition of the rights of nature, find a development model that effectively respects its obligations to the climate and to human rights. Ecuador cannot continue to mortgage the present and future of entire communities and ecosystems under the pretext of the immediate and ephemeral profits of mining. New paths are possible and, above all, urgent.  

Coal or life: Walking where a stream once ran

The appointment was on a hot Sunday in July. Together with Wayuu indigenous and Afro-descendant communities displaced by coal mining, members of social and human rights organizations, employees of Cerrejón, and government officials, I walked for more than five hours over the barren land where the Bruno Stream once ran. What I saw in my path were the remains of snails that died of thirst, stuck to the mud, and the lifeless body of a tigrillo that showed us so clearly what mustn’t happen again. The Bruno is a vein of water that once irrigated the department of La Guajira, located in Colombia’s far north, a region hit years ago by extreme drought. It is a major tributary of the Ranchería River, one of the department’s most important water sources, and forms part of the underground water systems that have long given life to the region’s communities. It was painful to walk where the Bruno once flowed free, and to think—while doing so—that what is now a dry riverbed was once abundant with life. That Sunday, we also toured the area intended to be the artificial channel of the stream. In 2014, the National Environmental Licensing Authority authorized Cerrejón to divert 3.6 kilometers of Bruno’s flow to favor ongoing coal exploitation in La Guajira. Several things made on impact on me that day. One of them was that, although the rivers belong to us all and natural water sources are public, we were accompanied the entire time by employees of the company. While walking the stream, we entered the land “owned” by the coal-mining concessionaire. Communities that used to travel freely along the banks of the stream can no longer do so today. Although the Bruno is one of few streams in Colombia’s driest department and one of the scarce sources of fresh water for communities living there, its channel was clogged and diverted to facilitate mining. An engineering project has altered one of the most important streams for a thirsty region and created an artificial path through which not a single drop of water flows. “If they carry water, they’re rivers; if not, they’re roads,” a verse from Guatemalan indigenous poet Humberto Ak’abal teaches us. The new “channel” of the Bruno is not a river, but “a barren road” attesting to the deterioration of a sensitive ecosystem. The “road” does not recover or mitigate the damages from the stream’s diversion. On the contrary, it produces new ones. The world is facing a climate crisis, and coal mining is one of its primary causes. While many countries are replacing the use of coal in their energy matrices with cleaner options, Colombia has decided to dry up a river to exploit more and more coal. Walking paths of justice The day after the walk, the frustration of the absurd did not prevent me from embracing a glimmer of hope. On Monday, I joined representatives of indigenous communities and local organizations at a public hearing convened by several Congressmen to discuss what happened with the Bruno. The strength and dignity of their words, in which decades of resistance were encrypted, fed my soul. “This territory is ours, our rivers are our life and we care for life—for our children, for our present, for our future and that of the world.” As it has done many times before, La Guajira spoke to the country and the world. They told the Congressmen that it’s not possible to prioritize the use of water for mining over human consumption. They warned that the country must transition to an energy production that doesn’t cause the damages that coal mining has to the climate, human rights, and the species and ecosystems that sustain us. The stream must return to its channel, the snails must drink again from its waters, and no tigrillo should die due to the intentional destruction of its natural habitat. In a 2017 ruling, the Constitutional Court demonstrated that uncertainties exist as to the environmental and social impacts of the Bruno Stream riverbed modification project. The Court ordered the creation of an Inter-Institutional working group to resolve the complaints of the affected people. Communities will continue to demand compliance with that ruling and demonstrate that the uncertainties are, in fact, certain damages that will continue to undermine their lives. AIDA, along with our partner organizations, will continue to accompany this struggle to demonstrate the harms of coal mining and promote clean alternatives that respect both people and the environment.  

Infographic: Lakes Poopó and Uru Uru, at-risk Bolivian wetlands

Located in the central-eastern Bolivian highlands, lakes Poopó and Uru Uru are important sources of water for indigenous and rural communities and the area's planet and animal life.  Both ecosystems, considered Wetlands of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention, are at serious risk due to mining activity, river diversion and the climate crisis.  

Communities request international support to save Bolivia’s Poopó and Uru Uru lakes

Local communities and organizations call on the Ramsar Convention to visit the lakes and issue recommendations for their preservation. The lakes are at grave risk from mining, river diversion and the climate crisis, threatening the subsistence of indigenous communities and the region’s unique plant and animal species. La Paz, Bolivia.  Local communities along with a coalition of organizations request that the Ramsar Convention, an intergovernmental treaty for the protection of wetlands, send an expert mission to evaluate the health of lakes Poopó and Uru Uru, and issue recommendations to the Bolivian government for the urgent recovery of these key ecosystems. “The Ramsar Convention’s specialized knowledge on wetlands can be of great use to save lakes Poopó and Uru Uru,” said Carlos Lozano Acosta, senior attorney with the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). These lakes are an important source of water for the plants and animals of the Central-Eastern Bolivian highlands, particularly for several endemic and migratory bird species. Lake Poopó is the second largest lake in Bolivia, after the iconic Lake Titicaca. Together, the lakes host the largest number of flamingos in the Bolivian highlands and, quite possibly, in the entire high Andean region of South America. These highland ecosystems are also home to unique species such as the Titicaca grebe (Rollandia microptera), an endangered species of flightless bird. The lives and livelihoods of peasant and indigenous populations—including Quechua, Aymara, and Uru Murato communities—depend on the preservation of lakes Poopó and Uru Uru. The Uru Murato are known as the “people of water” due to their dependence on the lakes, and are among the oldest native indigenous communities in Bolivia. “It was precisely to preserve the lakes that, in 2002, the government registered Poopó and Uru Uru as wetlands of international importance under the Ramsar Convention,” explained Sergio Vásquez, director of the Andean Communication and Development Center (CENDA). “As such, we ask that Ramsar support the Bolivian government in the protection of these and other high Andean wetlands.” In December 2015, the water levels of Lake Poopó were reduced to such a degree that the body of water actually disappeared, in what is now considered one of the largest environmental catastrophes in the country. The causes were various: sedimentation produced by mining activity; the diversion of the lake’s tributary rivers; and natural phenomenon aggravated by the climate crisis. Although the lake’s levels have since increased in times of rain, the situation remains critical during the dry season. “We’re requesting that Ramsar experts identify measures to strengthen the surveillance and monitoring of these ecosystems,” said Angela Cuenca, of the Coordinated Collective for Socio-Environmental Actions (CASA Collective). “We’d also like them to recommend mitigation and restoration actions for the damages caused by mining activities.” The degradation of lakes Poopó and Uru Uru directly affects the wellbeing of the people who depend on them, causing harms to public health, particularly among women, girls and boys. The grave situation of the lakes forced the Uru Murato people, previously dedicated to fishing, to migrate for work in the mines, placing them among the region’s first climate refugees. “We indigenous and rural women live and feel the effects of pollution and the lake’s disappearance, because we are responsible for feeding and sustaining our families,” explained Margarita Aquino, from the National Network of Women Defenders of Mother Earth (RENAMAT). “These water sources are vital for our communities and for Mother Earth Press contact: Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, [email protected], +5215570522107  

How Brazil is threatening indigenous and environmental rights

With the new presidency, Brazil has entered an unfortunate period of changes—to legislation, governmental structure, and foreign and public policy—that will set the nation back decades on the issues of climate, the environment and human rights. The new administration has made a host of extremely questionable decisions that signal the weakening of guarantees for indigenous peoples in Brazil, the Amazon, and the environment as a whole. Some of the reforms that most stand out include: The transfer of the Ministry of the Environment’s most important functions to the Ministry of Agriculture. The weakening of governmental entities responsible for monitoring cases of environmental crimes. The transfer of responsibility for demarcating indigenous lands from the National Indian Foundation (FUNAI) to the Ministry of Agriculture. The suspension of contracts signed between state entities and civil society organizations. The weakening of the process for granting environmental permits. Continuous threats to withdraw Brazil from international agreements on the protection of the environment and indigenous peoples, including the recent threat to leave ILO Convention 169. These changes seem to be just the beginning, and the outlook could worsen at any moment. The latest move to undermine environmental protection in Brazil is the apparent opening of indigenous lands to large-scale mining projects. In March, Brazil’s Minister of Mines and Energy announced to attendees of one of the largest global mining events (the annual convention of the Prospectors & Developers Association of Canada) that he would seek authorization for mining activities in indigenous and border areas. He stated that indigenous peoples would not have the autonomy to prevent the installation of mines in their territory. The State’s priority, this move implies, will be to promote irresponsible development over the protection of human rights. How mining threatens indigenous lands Last year, a government decree (Decree 9406) established drastic changes and new flexibility for mining activities, including successive extensions for permits in the event of lack of access, lack of consent or permission of the environmental agency, and the consideration that mining's foundations are the national interest and public utility. But mining itself is not in the national interest, since it implies great environmental damage and throws ecosystems out of balance. It must instead be recognized as a high-risk activity that causes destruction and contamination. Brazil has been incapable of safely regulating mining activities. We need only think of the rupture of two dams of mining waste in less than four years in the state of Minas Gerais. The first case in Mariana is considered the greatest environmental tragedy in Brazil’s history, and the second, earlier this year in Brumadinho, resulted in 197 deaths and 111 missing persons. If the government’s need for mining is undeniable, so is the need for stricter controls, the use of safer techniques, and a serious national assessment of the viability of each and every mine. Given the serious environmental damage associated with mining, its implementation on indigenous lands implies transferring those damages to a minority and vulnerable population that depends directly on the health of the environment for its physical and cultural survival. Indigenous communities have the constitutional right to be heard on projects that may affect them; some communities have even created protocols on how they want to be consulted. To build a mine against the will of a community is to violate their rights to life, to self-determination, to autonomy, to culture, to not being forcibly displaced, to benefit from their native territories, and to a healthy environment, among many others. The statements of the Minister of Mines and Energy represent a complete lack of commitment to the fundamental rights established in the Brazilian Constitution, as well as to internationally recognized human rights. They reveal a singular intention to appease investors, particularly the Canadian company behind the Belo Sun mining project, which seeks to mine indigenous lands already impacted by the construction of the Belo Monte Dam. In defense of indigenous peoples Mining on indigenous lands is not yet adequately regulated in Brazil. What the country needs is for Congress to approve a law that respects the fundamental rights of indigenous communities and protects their lands, while including communities in the process. The setbacks posed by the current administration have only strengthened the resistance of indigenous communities, and those of us who support them. Civil society organizations like AIDA are committed to defending human rights, safeguarding indigenous territory, and holding governments and corporations accountable whenever they pose a threat.  

Organizations ask the UN to intervene in the protection of the Santurbán páramo, at risk from mining

They request that the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Drinking Water and Sanitation prepare a report on the case, visit the site, and support the Colombian government in taking the necessary actions to protect the ecosystem, an important source of water for millions of people, from the dangers of mining. Bucaramanga, Colombia. Civil society organizations in Colombia sent a communique to Léo Heller, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Drinking Water and Sanitation. In it, they warn that their rights are at serious risk in the face of proposed mining projects in or near the Santurbán páramo, a water source for more than 10 municipalities and 3 large cities. They request that the Rapporteur prepare a report on the case, visit the site, and support the Colombian government in protecting that ecosystem. Actions and omissions by the Colombian government have allowed the development of mining projects that threaten the availability and quality of water provided by the páramo. The government’s protection of the páramo did not include the entire ecosystem, leaving a part of it unprotected, and did not allow for public participation. As a result, the Constitutional Court ordered the government to redo the process of delimiting the páramo. The submission details: the process of defining the boundaries of the Santurbán páramo; the importance of that process for the environment and the enjoyment of the right to water in Colombia; the legal framework for the protection of páramos in the country; and the development of projects in or near the site. It also outlines associated environmental impacts or threats, including a decrease in the quality and quantity of water, contamination due to the use of explosives, a decrease in air quality, an increase in noise level, and the permanent loss of habitats. Likewise, the submission details the impacts of Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) claims on governmental decisions to protect their water sources. Several mining companies have tried for more than 15 years to extract gold from the Santurbán páramo. Some of those are Canadian companies, who are currently using this arbitration process to demand hundreds of millions of dollars from the Colombian government in compensation for their “lost” profits. The organizations ask that the Rapporteur monitor the situation in the Santurbán páramo and urge the Colombian government to comply with its international obligations in relation to the right to water. Find more information on the case here.  press contacts: Alix Mancilla, Comité para la Defensa del Agua y el Páramo de Santurbán, [email protected], +57 311 2439273 (Spanish only) Carlos Lozano, AIDA, [email protected], +57 300 56 40 282 Carla García, CIEL, [email protected], +1 202 374 2550 Kirsten Francescone, MiningWatch Canada, [email protected], +14373459881 Kristen Genovese, SOMO, [email protected], +31 65 277 3272  

World Bank Arbitration Tribunal Refuses to Listen to Those Affected by Mining in Santurbán, Colombia

The World Bank’s International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) has declined to accept an Amicus Curiae that was to be presented by the Committee for the Defense of Water and the Páramo of Santurbán and allied international organizations. Bucaramanga, Bogotá, Washington, Ottawa, Amsterdam. National and international civil society organizations rebuffed the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes’ (ICSID) refusal to accept an Amicus Curiae within the process of the ongoing international arbitration brought forth by Canadian mining company Eco Oro Minerals Corp. against Colombia. The arbitration centre is hearing the ongoing international arbitration put forth by the Canadian company in question against the Andean nation. The company is attempting to pursue its Angostura gold mining project in the Santurbán páramo, located in the northeast of the country. The arbitration questions the decisions taken by the Colombian State to protect its páramos, high mountain wetlands that are a natural source of water for 70% of its inhabitants. The arbitration is being heard at the ICSID, an organization dependent on the World Bank that is in charge of the resolution of disputes between investors and States. Colombia could be condemned to pay $746 million US dollars, an unprecedented sanction for the country. “At a time when Latin American countries are embracing the principles of environmental democracy with the adoption of the Escazú Agreement, ICSID is going in the opposite direction. It is regrettable that in the midst of the regional movement for transparency and participation, ICSID has opted to constrict itself even more. In doing so, it is only generating more anger and distrust, not only in the face of this mechanism, but also in the face of the whole system of Investor-State Arbitration worldwide,” stated Carla García Zendejas, Senior Attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL). “The communities affected by mining in Santurbán have to be heard and can provide crucial elements for the case,” said Carlos Lozano, Senior AIDA Attorney. The organizations consider that the Committee for the Defense of Water and the Páramo of Santurbán has a significant interest in the outcome of the process and that they could have provided expertise to the arbitration tribunal, which would have been helpful for a better decision in the case. In the same way, they urge ICSID to expand citizen participation and make its decision-making processes more transparent. This is transcendental for the public interest of the countries whose governments are subject to its jurisdiction. Find more information on the case here.  PRESS CONTACTS: Alix Mancilla, Comité para la Defensa del Agua y el Páramo de Santurbán, [email protected], +57 311 2439273 Carla García Zendejas, CIEL, [email protected], +1 202 374 2550 Carlos Lozano Acosta, AIDA, [email protected], +57 300 56 40 282 Kirsten Francescone, MiningWatch Canada, [email protected], +14373459881 Kristen Genovese, SOMO, [email protected], +31 65 277 3272, Manuel Perez Rocha, Institute for Policy Studies, [email protected] +1 240 838 6623