Mining

Capacity Building, Freshwater Sources, Mining

Towards just water governance in Colombia: A dialogue on the Transformative Water Pact

UN 2023 Water Conference virtual side event Ecosystems such as wetlands, paramos, rivers and other hydrosystems, as well as the people who inhabit them, are fundamental to mitigate the water crisis. However, the growing socio-environmental conflicts over competition for water uses are evidence of the strong pressure on water resources exerted by large-scale mining and other extractive industries in Colombia and Latin America. Indigenous peoples, Afro-descendants, peasant communities and urban dwellers continue to demand judicial protection of their human rights to water and environmental participation due to the impacts generated by human activity. This event presented The Transformative Water Pact (TWP), an innovative framework for water governance that has been developed by environmental justice experts from around the world. The TWP served as a starting point for dialogue between representatives of the government of Colombia, academia, regional and international NGOs in relation to Colombia’s current ambitions in multi-scalar water governance. Specific attention was given to the ways in which indigenous, ethnic and bio-cultural approaches can be used to create stronger synergies between communities and formal institutions within the context of water governance. We also discussed challenges that still remain in protecting strategic ecosystems in the region and the lessons learned from the environmental movement in Colombia, linking them to policy recommendations for transformative water governance at the regional level.   speakers Murtah Shannon, Policy Advisor, Both ENDS. Yeny Rodríguez, Attorney, Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA).  Fabián Caicedo, Director de Gestión Integral del Recurso Hídrico, Ministerio de Ambiente de Colombia.  Violet Matiru, Executive Director, Millenenium Community Development Initiative (MCDI), Kenia. Bhanumathi Kalluri, Director, Dhaatri Trust, India.   Recording   More info Learn more about the Transformative Water Pact.  

Read more
Indigenous Rights, Mining, Accountability and Transparency

Swiss OECD Point of Contact calls on Glencore to comply with due diligence on coal mine in Colombia

Switzerland’s National Contact Point (NCP) for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) recommended that the multinational as the sole owner of the Cerrejón mine in Colombia ensure “its policies and due diligence measures promote responsible business conduct at Cerrejón” in its final statement on the complaint filed against Glencore. The NCP further implored Glencore to maintain a dialogue with NGOs and representatives of the indigenous Wayúu and Afro-Colombian communities affected by the mine's operations. In January 2021, a coalition of national and international organizations—comprised of GLAN, CAJAR, AIDA, CINEP, Ask! ABColombia and Christian Aid Ireland—filed five complaints with the OECD NCPs in Ireland, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, and Australia to denounce the various detrimental impacts of the Cerrejón mine, operated by Carbones del Cerrejón. The coalition detaile the disastrous impacts on the lives and human rights of the indigenous, Afro-descendant and other rural populations of La Guajira resulting from operation of the Cerrejón mine and Carbones de Cerrejón’s lack of due diligence in its operations, leading to non-compliance with OECD guidelines for multinational companies. The coalition filed the complaints against ESB (Electricity Supply Board), the Irish state-owned company that buys coal from the Cerrejón mine; CMC (Coal Marketing Company), based in Dublin, Ireland, which markets the coal from Cerrejón, and the multinational mining companies that jointly own Carbones del Cerrejón: BHP, Anglo American and Glencore. In response to the coalition’s complaints, the Swiss NCP noted that "the Australian and British NCPs will publish, in accordance with their rules of procedure, Final Statements regarding BHP and Anglo American respectively.” The complaints in Ireland are still pending. The Swiss NCP’s statement did not address the main duty of its mandate—to ensure the implementation of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. Instead, the Swiss NCP statement merely reiterated generic existing duties and did not make substantive recommendations in response to the details or the gravity of the Cerrejón’s human rights abuses and violations documented in the complaint. The Swiss NCP conducted its review with serious irregularities and asymmetries in its treatment of the parties. The Swiss NCP failed to provide the affected Wayuu indigenous and Afro-descendant communities with access to information about the review or any guarantees of participation in the review. These asymmetries and irregularities resulted in Glencore’s impunity for the serious human rights violations committed by the mining operations of Carbones del Cerrejón. Our coalition eventually chose to withdraw from the process in protest of the Swiss NCP’s disfavorable treatment of the coalition and favorable treatment of Glencore. Our experience with the Swiss NCP highlights how the complex web and architecture of impunity and asymmetry in international processes favors multinational companies, resulting in abysmal gaps in justice for victims of multinational companies’ human rights abuses and violations. Given the enormity of the Swiss NCP’s incompetence, negligence, and inconsistency in its functions, we reject the NCP’s final statement which suggests that GLAN and the coalition members are to blame for failure of the mediation process. In this statement, the NCP ignores the impacts of its own deficiencies on the mediation process. The way the Swiss NCP in structured the mediation process placed a greater burden on the complainant’s ability to access and participate in the mechanism than on Glencore. Despite these disadvantages, the coalition participated with the utmost diligence and good faith throughout the entire procedure. The Swiss NCP’s incompetence in this instance is part of its pattern of favoritism of multinationals. For example, the Swiss NCP mishandled the complaint against Sygenta for its harm to farmers in India. The NCP's improper practices led Marcos Orellana, UN Special Rapporteur on Toxic Substances and Human Rights, to state that the Swiss NCP set “a bad precedent that underlines the weaknesses of the National Contact Points for the OECD Guidelines.” Because the Swiss legal accountability mechanisms do so little to regulate the conduct of Glencore—a company with a history of corruption and serious allegations of human rights abuses and violations associated with its global activities—the Swiss government is implicated in Glencore’s abuses. Although the OECD guidelines are voluntary for companies, countries that adhere to guidelines make a binding commitment to implement them. The Swiss NCP's inadequate handling of this complaint and the Swiss government’s failure to comply with its functions and the obligations relating to respect for human rights, leads us to question degree of the Swiss government’s complicity in these abuses and how this complicity creates an environment of tolerance for corporate violations and abuses. What is clear is that the OCED’s voluntary mechanism has become a way to mask corporate violations and facilitate corporate impunity. Although the Swiss government does not grant real and effective access to justice for victims of Glencore’s violations as an investor in Carbones del Cerrejón, Glencore is able make use of its guarantees as an investor—as established in the Foreign Investment Protection Agreement between Colombia and Switzerland—to sue the Colombian government over a court ruling that protected the human rights of the Wayuu people from Carbones del Cerrejón’s actions. In the face of this asymmetry in justice between the parties, it is concerning that Colombia choses to maintain this agreement. We reiterate the inadequacy of non-judicial mechanisms to hold multinational corporations accountable. Cases such as this highlight the need for binding due diligence legislation and a treaty regarding companies and human rights that includes real accountability for abuses resulting from seemingly unlimited transnational corporate power.   Signed: Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) José Alvear Restrepo Lawyers' Collective (CAJAR) Center for Research and Popular Education (CINEP) Christian Aid ASK ABColombia Global Legal Action Network (GLAN)   press contact: Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, [email protected], +525570522107  

Read more
Mining, Toxic Pollution, Human Rights

Organizations, coalitions, academia, and specialists support victims of toxic contamination in La Oroya

Experts filed 15 amicus briefs before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights upholding the central argument of the case: that the government of Peru is responsible for violating the human rights of residents of La Oroya for the lack of urgent and effective actions to address pollution from a metal smelter, and its harmful effects.   San José, Costa Rica. Organizations, coalitions, academia, and specialists presented 15 legal briefs (Amicus curiae) before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to support the case of residents of La Oroya against the government of Peru, for human rights resulting from a metal plant spewing toxic pollution into the Andean city for nearly 90 years. The briefs contain solid evidence that support the central argument of the case: that the Peruvian government—by not taking urgent and effective action to address the pollutions and its effects—is responsible for the violation of the rights to life, health, personal integrity, childhood, and a healthy environment of the residents of La Oroya. This argument as expressed in a public audience on October 12 and 13, when the international court heard from witnesses, experts, victims, and government representatives.  The briefs, sent to the Court between October 11 and 28, demonstrate that the importance of the case surpasses the Peruvian context and represents a historic opportunity to establish a key precedent in Latin America, and the world, that strengthens the right to a healthy environment and government’s role supervising business activities.   One of the briefs was presented by the University Network for Human Rights in partnership with a panel of experts: five former authorities from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Tracy Robinson, James Cavallaro, Paulo de Tarso Vannuchi, Flávia Piovesan and Paulo Abrão) and three former Special Rapporteurs to the United Nations (John Knox, James Anaya, and Juan Méndez). Briefs were presented by Peruvian organizations— including the Technical Committee for Environmental and Human Health and the Civil Society Platform on Business and Human Rights—as well as from other countries in Latin America—the Mexican Center for Environmental Law (Mexico), Defensoria Ambiental (Chile), and Justice for Nature (Costa Rica)—and international organizations such as Earthjustice and The Center for Justice and Environmental Law. Furthering the international scope of the hearing, The Working Group for Strategic Litigation of Red-DESC and the United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights. From the academic sector, support came from the Human Rights Research and Education Center of the University of Ottawa (Canada), the Clinic for Human Rights of the Postgraduate Law School of the Pontificia Catholic University of Paraná (Brazil), and the Legal Clinic of Environmental and Public Health of the University of the Andes (Colombia).  Other writings were presented by experts on the issues that the case addresses: David R. Boyd, Special Rapporteur to the UN on human rights and the environment, medical anthropologist Susana Ramírez, and attorneys Carla Luzuriaga-Salinas, Macarena Martinic Cristensen, and Ezio Costa Cordella. Following the hearing and the briefs, the next step in the legal process is to present written closing arguments a potential visit to La Oroya by the judges from the Court. The sentence, which cannot be appealed, is expected within six months. press contact Víctor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, [email protected], +525570522107  

Read more
Mining, Toxic Pollution, Human Rights

Victims of toxic contamination in La Oroya take their voice before the Inter-American Court

There’s no deadline that won’t be met. And so, after a 20-year quest for justice, the habitants of the small Andean city of La Oroya, Peru appeared before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. On October 12 and 13, the judges of the high international court heard their complaint against the government of Peru for the serious violation of human rights derived from a metal smelter that has contaminated La Oroya for almost 90 years. The city has been documented as one of the most polluted places on the planet. "The contamination from the La Oroya Metallurgical Complex has permeated every component of its inhabitants' environment: the water they drink, the soil they walk on, the air they breathe, the schoolyards and the mountains that frame their living environment," said AIDA's attorney Liliana Avila, as she presenting closing arguments in the case. Brave Testimonies At the hearing in Montevideo, Uruguay, three affected former residents of La Oroya gave their testimony. They are just a few of the more than 80 courageous people who filed the lawsuit—those residents willing to defend their right to live in a healthy environment despite the context of harassment they have faced because of it. "The period in which the metal smelter developed was disastrous. The toxic gases emanating from the complex created a thick mist that turned into a dandruff that coated the faces of the children,” recalled Rosa Amaro, a 74-year-old mother who chaired the Movement for Health in La Oroya, where she lived until 2017. “We tried to survive, but the government was like a father who turned his back to us.” Dressed in warm clothes and a woolen hat, Rosa's face, body and voice bore the indelible marks of the passing years, deteriorating health and the fear that forced her to leave her hometown. "They call us enemies of La Oroya." In tears, Rosa expressed to the court her desire to return home and to see her name cleared of all stigmas. "Our struggle is not for one, it is for an entire population". The case represents many more residents of La Oroya who, for fear of reprisals, are not named in the lawsuit. After testifying, Rosa felt relieved of a heavy burden and with enough strength to continue. The population of La Oroya has breathed multiple toxic substances that, according to scientific evidence, cause serious risks to human health.  The contamination with lead and other heavy metals has burst into their respiratory system, traveled through their bloodstream and has been deposited imperceptibly in their vital organs. "I didn’t have a childhood because I spent it locked up in four walls, not because they wouldn’t let me go out, but because of the discomfort, because our throats were itchy,” Maricruz Aliaga, 28, told the court. “When we went to school, my mother protected us [from the ashes] with a hat." The contamination has affected her memory and is the reason why, even today, her body is paralyzed several times a year. “In Huancayo, I could breathe.” As a child, Maricruz’s vacations to the neighboring city made her realize that it was not normal to watch the plants she took to school die after just 15 days. Following a lifetime of hostility due to her family’s activism, she now lives in another city, and the effects on their health were her main motivation to study nursing. The toxic elements from the smelter remain in the bodies of those who lived and grew in La Oroya. Their presence has caused health problems, many of them irreversible, and may generate new illnesses in the future. "The only thing we want, since we are no longer going to enjoy good health—that is already done, my health is already destroyed—is for future generations to enjoy good health," Yolanda Zurita added in her testimony before the court. "That will be our reward, our satisfaction; that is what we are looking for." The road to justice Reaching this point has not been easy. On behalf of the victims, and with the support of the Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos (APRODEH), in 2006 AIDA filed the international complaint against the Peruvian government.  Finally, in October 2021—15 years after the process began—the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) established the government's responsibility for right violations and referred the case to the Inter-American Court. Preparation for the hearing began at that time and intensified in the weeks leading up to it. The long hours of work were reflected in the solidity with which we demonstrated that the government is responsible for violating the rights to life, health, personal integrity, children and a healthy environment of the inhabitants of La Oroya. At the hearing we presented four main arguments: The existence of serious environmental contamination, The risk and causal link with the damages derived from that contamination, The government’s knowledge of that situation, and The absence of urgent and effective measures to respond to it.   In addition, we called in experts whose testimony amply supported our allegations. Two of them presented their findings at the hearing. "The duty of care does not arise with clinical harm, but with the risk of harm," emphasized Marcos Orellana, UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights implications of exposure to hazardous substances and toxic waste. In addition, Marisol Yañez, a psychosocial expert, demonstrated based on 61 in-depth interviews, four focus groups and psychometric tests the existence of "environmental suffering," aggravated by impunity and stigmatization. After the hearing, there remains the written presentation of the arguments and a potential visit to La Oroya by the judges of the Court. The sentence, which cannot be appealed, is expected within the next six months. The importance of the case goes beyond the Peruvian context and represents a historic opportunity to establish a key precedent for all of Latin America. "This is the first case before this court with the potential to develop in-depth violations of the right to a healthy environment as the result of government action regarding public and private companies,” explained Jorge Meza Flores, deputy executive secretary of the IACHR's Petitions and Cases System. Taking into account what is at stake is undoubtedly fundamental when the national debate around La Oroya has prioritized, even in these days, the possible reactivation of the metal smelter over the protection of the fundamental rights and health of an entire population.  

Read more
Mining, Toxic Pollution, Human Rights

With La Oroya case, the Inter-American Court may set a key precedent for protecting a healthy environment in Latin America

On October 12 and 13, the international court will hear the case of people affected by toxic pollution in La Oroya, Peru. Beyond reestablishing the rights of the victims, the court’s eventual decision marks an historic opportunity to strengthen the protection of the right to a healthy environment in the region and to encourage States to adequately supervise corporate activities.   Montevideo, Uruguay. On October 12 and 13, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights will hear the case of residents from La Oroya, Peru, whose fundamental rights have been violated for decades due to heavy metal contamination from a metal smelting complex. The hearing will take place during the 153rd Session of the Court, to be held October 10-21 in Montevideo, Uruguay. Last October, 15 years after the international lawsuit against the Peruvian State was filed, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights—in it’s decision on the merits of the case—established the Peruvian government’s international responsibility in the violation of the human rights of the residents of La Oroya, and referred the case to the Inter-American Court. At the hearing next week, as part of the process of drafting their ruling, the judges of the court will hear from witnesses, experts, and victims, as well as from State representatives. As organizations that have legally represented and accompanied the group of victims since the beginning of the case, the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) and the Pro Human Rights Association (APRODEH) will bring to the court strong arguments, supported by legal and scientific evidence, to defend the rights of the affected people. After a decades-long search of justice, the case is important not only for the community of La Oroya, but for all people affected by corporate activities across the continent. In addition, the case is representative of a serious political, social and environmental situation that has not been considered by national, regional and international politics. The current conditions prevent the citizens of La Oroya from having healthy prospects for the future. There exists a real need for justice and mobilization to generate a strong recognition of economic and environmental alternatives for the direct and indirect victims. Liliana Avila, senior attorney at AIDA, explains the context of the case and emphasizes the importance of a favorable and forceful decision by the court: "The La Oroya case before the Inter-American Court puts an end to more than 20 years of waiting in the search for justice and reparations for those whose lives were drastically changed by historic exposure to toxic contamination. It is a milestone for the Inter-American Human Rights System because it will be one of the first cases to centrally address the indivisible relationship between a healthy environment and other fundamental human rights such as life, health and personal integrity. It constitutes a unique opportunity to set a regional and global precedent for the protection of the right to a healthy environment and compliance with the obligations of States to adequately supervise corporate activities, as well as to guarantee the special protection of children, girls, women, the elderly and other vulnerable groups.” Gloria Cano Legua, executive director of APRODEH, refers to the urgency of a decision that grants justice and reparation to the people of La Oroya:  "The victims have had to see how the State, through various governments, has disregarded its obligations, while their health problems have worsened. The indifference and sometimes hostility with which they have been treated has offended their dignity". PReSS CONTACTS: Víctor Quintanilla (AIDA), [email protected], +525570522107 Gloria Cano Legue (APRODEH), [email protected], +51 964 809 193 Christian Huaylinos Camacuari (APRODEH), [email protected], +51 959 789 232  

Read more
Indigenous Rights, Mining, Freshwater Sources

Irish company buying Colombian coal to be investigated for lack of due diligence with regard to human rights

The OECD accepted a complaint filed by civil society against the Irish state-owned company ESB for its failure of responsible business conduct in the purchase of coal from Cerrejón.   The National Contact Point (NCP) for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in Ireland agreed to evaluate the complaint filed against an Irish state-owned company, The Electricity Supply Board (ESB), for its lack of due diligence on human rights. ESB is a buyer of coal from Carbones del Cerrejón, the operator of the largest open-pit coal mine in Latin America. The complaint was filed in January 2021 by a coalition of national and international organizations, including CAJAR, CINEP, AIDA, GLAN, ABColombia, Ask, and Christian Aid. The complaint also had the support of several leaders of Wayuu and Afro-Campesino indigenous communities that have been historically affected by this extractive coal mining megaproject. For years ESB, considered Ireland's largest energy company, has purchased coal from the Cerrejón mine, located in La Guajira, Colombia, for use in its Moneypoint power plant in County Clare. The complaint alleges non-compliance by the company, as the purchaser, with the OECD's standards of due diligence and responsible business conduct in environmental and human rights matters. In addition, the complaint alleges that ESB has failed to take the necessary actions to influence Carbones de Cerrejón's own due diligence in identifying, mitigating, and preventing human rights abuses linked to the mine. This failure comes despite well-documented evidence of serious violations against Wayuu and Afro-Colombian indigenous communities, including environmental impacts and threats to human rights defenders. Following an initial assessment of the complaint, the Irish government's NCP released an initial statement on Monday, July 18, stating that it found sufficient grounds for further examination of the issues raised. From the perspective of the denouncing organizations, the purchase of Colombian coal by ESB has been made in spite of the company having been aware of ample evidence of serious human rights violations and environmental impacts in the territory of indigenous Wayuu and Afro-descendant communities. The company itself, on its official website, stated: "ESB is well aware of Colombia's difficult history that has had serious impacts on its population for many years. We are also aware of the issues reported in the media regarding the Cerrejón mine, many of which are related to Colombia's past. We are committed to remaining attentive to all of these issues and will continue to work with Bettercoal to influence and drive improvements. We bring these issues to Bettercoal for assessment as a matter of course." Although ESB had indicated that it stopped buying coal from Cerrejón in 2018 because of human rights violations, it recently announced that in the wake of the Russia-Ukraine war it was resuming its purchase of this coal for the coming months. "Six years ago, Ireland stopped buying Colombian coal, citing human rights concerns, and turned to Russia for the fossil fuel. Now, the European nation has resumed purchases from Colombia." On his recent visit to La Guajira in April of this year, Irish TD Gary Gannon criticized ESB for restarting coal imports from Cerrejón. Gary Gannon, who traveled to Colombia in April as part of the parliamentary delegation, said he had seen with his own eyes the devastating environmental impact of the mine and the pain of the indigenous communities displaced from their land for its expansion. "There is a disturbing double standard in this return to Cerrejón," he said. "We rightly say no to Russian coal after the invasion of Ukraine, recognizing the impact our business decisions can have on human rights. But that standard must apply everywhere, including Colombia." In the words of Wayuu leader Jakeline Romero Epiayu: "European countries, with total hypocrisy, send us messages of decarbonization, of abandoning the use of fossil fuels; but suddenly they put Colombia and La Guajira back in their focus to buy this coal that they continue to need, this coal that we have tirelessly said is stained with blood, stained with the lives of Wayuu men, women, boys, and girls." The complaint requested, among other recommendations, that ESB: end its commercial relationship with the purchase of Colombian coal, issue a public statement acknowledging the need for its cessation, request the mine's parent companies initiate progressive closure of the mine and remediate its impacts, compile and publish an effective human rights policy, and issue a formal apology to the affected communities. Following the issuance of this initial assessment, the Irish NCP will formally ask the parties if they are willing to participate in mediation, with the objective of reaching a resolution to the issues raised in the complaint. The goodwill offer is voluntary for both parties. If a mediated solution is not possible, the Irish NCP will conduct a review of the complaint. The outcome will be reflected in a Final Statement which may include recommendations on the implementation of the OECD guidelines. The Irish NCP also noted that it is still processing another complaint against CMC Coal Marketing Company, a Dublin-based company responsible for the marketing and sale of coal from the Cerrejón mine. In the wake of the war between Russia and Ukraine and the current context of increasing demand for Cerrejón coal, this complaint sends an important message that countries and companies that buy this coal must continue meeting their obligations with respect to human rights and corporate due diligence duties. José Alvear Restrepo Lawyers' Collective Center for Research and Popular Education Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) press contact: Víctor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, [email protected], +525570522107  

Read more
Fracking, Indigenous Rights, Mining

Examining the obstacles to energy transition in Latin America

The climate crisis and its impacts on human rights require the governments of Latin America to design and implement laws, public policies, and other measures aimed at protecting the lives and integrity of their people. In the region most threatened by global warming, they must do so through mitigation, adaptation and attention to the losses and damages already caused. Given that the current energy system based on fossil fuels is the main cause of the climate crisis, as well as the inequalities that are closely linked to it, the framework for climate action in the Americas must be that of a just energy transition. The energy transition is an opportunity for the continent to abandon old energy production models characterized by large social and environmental impacts, and to move towards environmentally and climatically sustainable methods, while respecting the human rights of the communities and sectors involved.  Several countries in the region are failing to integrate this perspective. The case of Colombia exemplifies a risky trend for the region—the government is currently promoting a host of climate-aggravating projects, which deepen dependence on fossil fuels, as useful to the energy transition. Such regressive measures include: the expansion of coalmines in operation or the opening of new mines under the argument that the export of the mineral will finance the transition; and the favoring of natural gas exploitation through tax benefits and the easing of environmental permitting processes, under the false premise that gas is a clean energy source. Sounding the alarm Given the worrying panorama in Colombia, AIDA will be drafting and distributing a series of Urgent Alerts that call attention to projects, public policies and regulations that hinder a just transition, and deepen dependence on fossil fuels. They will be collective alerts, supported by other international organizations that, like AIDA, seek climate justice and work in defense of environmental and human rights. Each alert will be sent to the national authorities in charge of the measure in question. Geared toward promoting reflections on how to advance in the just energy transition, each alert will include public policy and regulatory recommendations based on the State's international obligations and commitments on climate, environmental and human rights issues. In each case, the message is clear—by continuing with the promotion, extraction and use of gas and coal, the Colombian State would be failing to comply with these obligations. The first alert calls attention to the potential definitive diversion of the Bruno stream in the department of La Guajira to expand production at and revenue from El Cerrejón, the largest open-pit coal mine in Latin America and one of the ten largest in the world. The project not only implies an increase in greenhouse gas emissions—coal is responsible for 44 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions—but is also a threat to the rights to water, food security and health of the Wayuu indigenous communities that depend on the stream. A regional scope The measures adopted by the Colombian State may well reflect the situation in other countries of the region, or be replicated in them. Several alerts will refer to the exploitation of hydrocarbons through fracking, a controversial technique advancing blindly in Colombia and other Latin American countries. Another will warn of the use of hydrogen, promoted as a viable and clean energy alternative. In Colombia there is already a public policy route to advance with its implementation and two pilot projects underway. Hydrogen production results from burning coal or gas at high temperatures. Recent studies warn that this requires capturing and storing carbon dioxide, so the alternative depends on being able to store carbon indefinitely and avoid leakage into the atmosphere. In addition, hydrogen production is energy-intensive and involves the emission of gases during the heating and pressurization process, as well as the use of natural gas as fuel. As a region, we cannot afford to delay the energy transition and the achievement of climate justice, both urgent and necessary goals, with options that will only tie us more and more to fossil fuels and to an energy system that only intensifies social inequalities and environmental degradation.    

Read more
Mining, Toxic Pollution, Climate Change

5 reasons to end coal extraction and use

The use of coal to generate energy began two thousand years ago. Today, its role as a fuel must come to an end: the negative impacts of its exploitation and use far outweigh the benefits. The solution to the climate crisis lies, in large part, in ending dependence on coal. Across the region, we’re seeing a growth in coal projects that conflicts with global emissions reduction targets. In a post-pandemic context, nations must commit to an economic recovery that keeps coal in the ground. As governments and companies across Latin America continue to promote the industry and ignore the true costs of coal, we’re offering them five reasons why the mining and burning of coal is a bad decision – economically, politically, environmentally, for human rights and the climate.   1. Coal is economically unviable due to the high costs of its impacts. The current production chain fails to consider the external costs derived from coal’s climate and environmental impacts, and social damages and it causes, which could double or even triple the price of electricity generated. For example, exporting a ton of coal from Colombia to Europe, the United States or Asia entails estimated external costs between $144.64 and $210.95 per ton, three times the market price of coal (which was $47.80 per ton in August 2019) (1). The exploitation and use of coal becomes economically unviable because the market price is not enough to cover the repair of the damage caused. The most serious aspect is that since the companies in the industry do not assume these costs, they are left in the hands of States, communities and ecosystems. 2. Coal projects create unemployment Arguments that coal mining stimulates development wherever it is carried out are a myth. The pollution created by coal mining impacts the health of the people exposed to it, affecting their work effectiveness and putting them at a disadvantage in accessing other work options. This results in up an unemployment rate of up to 40 percent in populations located near coalmines. In addition, the non-conventional renewable energy industry currently employs many more people than the coal industry. According to the International Renewable Energy Agency, that industry generated 11 million jobs worldwide in 2018, while the 10 countries with the most coal-dependent labor sources only generate approximately 225 thousand jobs. According to UN estimates, switching to renewable energies could generate up to 35 million additional jobs between 2020 and 2050. 3. Investing in coal is increasingly risky Both banks and insurance companies are ceasing to invest in the coal sector because of its high costs, high risks and low profitability. Today, 26 of the world's 35 largest banks have policies restricting financing for projects related to coal mining or coal-fired power generation. In fact, a group of OECD countries recently announced that they will end financial support for coal-fired power plants. Similarly, at least 18 of the world's largest insurance companies have decided to restrict activities linked to the coal industry. This shows that, thanks to public pressure, the industry is being de-financed and its market is no longer insurable. 4. Coal use aggravates the global climate crisis The extraction and burning of coal aggravates the climate crisis and causes vast human rights impacts: among them floods that displace residents, fires that destroy villages and ecosystems, and droughts that destroy crops. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, coal is responsible for 44 percent of carbon dioxide (C02) emissions from fossil fuels. Just nine countries are responsible for 85 percent of global emissions from its combustion. Coal mining also emits methane, a gas with 67 times more power than CO2 to warm the planet over a 20-year period and whose emissions are responsible for about 25 percent of global warming. Building new coal-fired power plants implies catastrophic climate change. This is why the UN proposed urgently accelerating the decarbonization of all aspects of the economy. To stay on track toward limited warming just 1.5°C by 2050, 90 percent of coal must remain in the ground. 5. Coal mining and use violate essential human rights, such as health. The entire cycle of coal—from its extraction, transport and export, to its burning or combustion—causes irreversible damage to people. One of the main impacts of coal mining is the degradation of air quality, which in turn violates the rights to health, life and a healthy environment, generating high rates of morbidity and mortality. The damages caused by coal mining include pneumoconiosis (black lung), known as "the miner's disease", which considerably reduces the life expectancy of those who work in mines and the surrounding communities, where children are the most affected. Likewise, pollutant emissions from coal-fired power plants are mainly responsible for the formation of microscopic particles (PM10 and PM2.5) capable of penetrating the respiratory and blood systems, increasing the rates of serious diseases such as lung cancer, and causing premature deaths. These five reasons are at the same time arguments for the decarbonization of Latin America's energy matrix. The region can and should direct its efforts towards a matrix based on non-conventional renewable energies that are environmentally friendly, people-friendly and sustainable over time. For more information, see our report Carbón, un combustible condenado al entierro. El final de una era y la promesa de una transición justa. (1) Precios actualizados a 2019 tomados de Cardoso A. Behind the life cycle of coal: Socio-environmental liabilities of coalmining in Cesar, Colombia. Ecological Economics 120 (2015) 71- 82, y Cardoso A., Santamaria R,. Peñalver L. (2019). Thetrue cost of coal in Colombia.  

Read more
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