Toxic Pollution

Aguas turbias del río Motagua en Guatemala

April 29 2025 Toxic Pollution, Human Rights, Indigenous Rights

Motagua River: A story of contamination and a call for justice

The Motagua River, Guatemala's largest river, is severely polluted with sewage, solid waste, and other types of waste.It flows into the Caribbean Sea, so contamination reaches those waters, as well as the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System - the world's largest transboundary reef - and the Honduran coast, causing unquantifiable social and environmental damage.Polluting activities occur throughout the river basin, including sub-basins and micro-basins.In general terms, the contamination has deteriorated the health and violated the right to water, development and a healthy environment of all the people living in the basin.The contamination of the Motagua is a problem that has been going on for decades and requires urgent long-term measures that contribute to the sanitation and integrated management of the river basin.Where is the Motagua River?The Motagua River is one of the main rivers in Guatemala. With a length of 486 km, it crosses 96 municipalities and 14 departments of the country. It originates in Quiché, a department located in the northwest, and flows into the Caribbean Sea.It is at its mouth that its flow meets the Mesoamerican Reef, which extends for approximately 1,000 km and covers the territorial waters of Belize, Guatemala, Honduras and Mexico. Thus, the pollution carried by the river deteriorates the health of the reef system, which is home to the second longest barrier reef in the world.The Mesoamerican Reef protects thousands of kilometers of coastline from currents, waves and storms. In addition to being a breeding and feeding ground for a great diversity of species, it is a carbon dioxide sink and a detoxifier of water and air. The ecological and economic health of the entire South Atlantic area depends on its conservation.In addition, pollution from the Motagua River reaches the coast of Honduras and spreads to Amatique Bay, located along the eastern coast of Guatemala and Belize. This is clearly a transboundary problem.Where does the pollution in of the Motagua River come from?The largest volume of contamination of the Motagua River comes from Guatemala City, the capital of the country, mainly through the waters of the Las Vacas River, which receives a large amount of solid waste from the Chinautla River, as well as sewage that is discharged into its waters on a daily basis.Solid waste from the Chinautla River, which flows through the municipality of the same name, comes from a landfill located in Zone 3 of the capital. Any small landslide in this landfill generates waste that is automatically dumped into the river at any time of the year.The pollution that the Chinautla river carries also consists of a large amount of sewage, generated by at least 500,000 people living in the northern part of Guatemala City, which does not receive any previous cleaning treatment.In the municipality of Chinautla there are numerous illegal landfills. In addition, many private vehicles and collection trucks dump waste on the banks of the Chinautla and Las Vacas rivers.According to data from the Integrated Environmental Management of the Motagua River Basin project, financed by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), it is estimated that 66% of urban solid waste in Guatemala is not collected and there is no guarantee that the remaining 34% is properly disposed of. In addition, of the total number of landfills in the country, 88.32% are illegal or do not have municipal authorization.Most of the waste is dumped in streams and/or on surfaces that are susceptible to dragging, ending up in one way or another in water sources, such as the Motagua basin.In other words, the main source of contamination of the Motagua River is the poor management of solid waste and water resources in the country; the lack of compliance with existing regulations on wastewater discharge, disposal and treatment of waste and solid waste; as well as the lack of a water law.Who is affected by the contamination of the Motagua River?The contamination of the Motagua River affects the entire population of Guatemala. In the lower basin, it directly affects people dedicated to fishing, who have seen their catches reduced.And, by harming tourism in the Caribbean, it also affects the communities that depend on tourism for their livelihoods.As a basin-wide problem, the contamination of the Motagua affects those living in the main sub-basins and micro-basins of the river, including the indigenous communities of the Mayan Poqomam people in the cities of Chuarrancho and Chinautla.In Chinautla, the contamination affects the living conditions, health, environment, water sources, economy and culture of more than 18,000 people.The restoration of the Motagua River is crucial to improve the quality of life of at least 30% of the Guatemalan population, as well as those affected in neighboring countries.Actions to rescue the Motagua River from contaminationIn the face of the serious degradation of Guatemala's largest river basin, the damage to key ecosystems such as the Mesoamerican Reef, and the human rights violations that pollution generates, urgent measures are required, among them:Verify compliance with environmental and municipal regulations, as well as prevent and halt environmental damage at the source through regulation, monitoring, supervision and oversight of activities that affect the rights of the inhabitants of the Motagua River basin.Strengthen regulations related to wastewater disposal and solid waste management so that they are implemented in a timely manner through complete treatment systems in the municipalities of the basin.Initiate actions to enable the socio-environmental restoration of affected ecosystems throughout the basin, including political, legislative and administrative measures to strengthen the legal system and allocate sufficient financial resources to ensure the protection of waters and territories.

March 24 2025 Toxic Pollution, Human Rights

Families of La Oroya demand Peru comply with Inter-American Court ruling

One year after the decision, the state has still not implemented the ordered reparations. The population lacks comprehensive health care and is once again exposed to toxic contamination due to the reactivation of the La Oroya smelter complex, which is operating without adequate environmental management.One year after the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ordered the Peruvian state to provide comprehensive reparations to the residents of La Oroya, after finding it responsible for violating their rights, the victims are still waiting for the ruling to be implemented and for state to comply with its international obligations."It's already been a year since the ruling was announced, how much longer will we have to wait?" asked Yolanda Zurita, a resident of La Oroya and a petitioner in the case. "Enough is enough! We demand that the Peruvian state immediately comply with the ruling of the Inter-American Court, which will benefit not only the victims of the case, but also the population of La Oroya and the country exposed to toxic substances from the indiscriminate development of extractive and industrial activities in our territories."On March 22, 2024, in a landmark decision for the protection of a healthy environment in Latin America, the Court responded to the long and tireless search for justice by the families of La Oroya, who have been affected for decades by the extreme levels of contamination from the La Oroya Metallurgical Complex (CMLO) and the lack of adequate protective measures by the State, which today ignores the ruling and underestimates its importance.Although the Court ordered the State to ensure that CMLO's operations comply with international environmental standards and to prevent and mitigate damage to the environment and human health, the opposite is currently the case: the complex has reactivated its operations without having modernized its facilities to prevent and mitigate the environmental and health risks it generates for the population.It is urgent that the CMLO stops polluting and that the Peruvian State adopts the measures required by the Court to modernize it in accordance with international environmental standards of environmental protection, in compliance with the ruling."With the reactivation of the metallurgical complex, the people of La Oroya are once again being exposed to levels of pollution that endanger their lives; the Inter-American Court's ruling is clear and the State is obligated to comply," said Rosa Peña, senior attorney with the Inter-American Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). "The delay in complying with the ruling is re-victimizing the families who have been demanding justice for more than 20 years."The court also ordered the state to provide free medical care to the victims and to guarantee specialized care to residents with symptoms and illnesses related to contamination from the mining and metallurgical activities. Today, however, comprehensive health care is not guaranteed in La Oroya. It is necessary that the State, through and in coordination with the Ministry of Health, the Regional Health Directorate of Junín, the General Directorate of Environmental Health, and health care providers, create and implement the protocol for comprehensive care for victims in La Oroya, as established by the Court.The ruling set a historic precedent for the control of industrial pollution by states. For the Peruvian State to make real progress in its implementation, it is imperative that the Attorney General's Office issue the Compliance Resolution."Despite the deadlines set by the Inter-American Court for the Peruvian State, there has been virtually no progress in the implementation of the ruling," said Christian Huaylinos, coordinator of the legal department of the Pro Human Rights Association (APRODEH). "Above all, the nature of the case must be taken into account, which implies that La Oroya has been classified as a sacrifice zone due to the high levels of contamination; therefore, the need to fully compensate the victims is urgent." Background of the caseLa Oroya is located in the central mountain range of Peru, in the department of Junin, 176 km from Lima. In 1992, the US company Cerro de Pasco Corporation installed the La Oroya Metallurgical Complex (CMLO) to process mineral concentrates. The complex was nationalized in 1974 and operated by the state under the name Centromin Peru until 1997, when it was taken over by Doe Run Peru, which operated it until 2009. In short, the CMLO is over 100 years old.In La Oroya, most of the people affected by the CMLO contamination, including children, have lead levels higher than those recommended by the World Health Organization. In some cases, they have registered higher levels of arsenic and cadmium, in addition to stress, anxiety, skin problems, stomach problems, chronic headaches, and respiratory or cardiac problems, among others.In the absence of effective responses at the national level and on behalf of the victims, an international coalition of organizations filed a complaint against the Peruvian State with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in 2006. In October 2021, the Commission found the Peruvian government responsible and referred the case to the Inter-American Court. In October 2022, more than 16 years after the international complaint was filed, the victims, represented by AIDA and APRODEH with the assistance of Earthjustice, brought the case before the Court. Press contactsVíctor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, [email protected], +52 5570522107María Nieve Sullón (Peru), APRODEH, [email protected], +51 984926868

February 24 2025 Climate Change, Toxic Pollution, Oceans

Learn about the negotiations to reduce maritime shipping emissions

The decarbonization of productive and economic activities is essential and urgent to address the triple crisis –climate, pollution and biodiversity loss– that the world is facing.In maritime shipping –which moves 10 billion tons of cargo each year and accounts for 2.9% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, including carbon dioxide (CO2)– the global need to reduce and eventually eliminate these emissions is being addressed by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the UN specialized agency responsible for setting standards for safe, efficient and environmentally sound shipping.The move toward decarbonization is critical because without significant change, shipping emissions could increase by as much as 50% by 2050.The IMO has a revised emissions reduction strategy that was agreed in 2023 by the 175 countries that make up the organization. It is expected to reduce emissions from the sector by up to 30% by 2030, 80% by 2040 and reach net zero by around 2050. Implementation of the strategy is currently the subject of international negotiations.AIDA is participating in these negotiations as part of the Clean Shipping Coalition, an international coalition of organizations. In addition, AIDA is coordinating efforts with Ocean Conservancy and Fundación Cethus to generate advocacy with Latin American countries and to collaborate with updated technical information on the progress of the negotiations and their implications for the region.The decarbonization of global shipping and its economic impact is a very important discussion for Latin America and the Caribbean. It is necessary that all countries and economic sectors align themselves with clear targets and that all impacts are assessed equally and fairly, as well as the ways in which countries can mitigate them. Read on to learn more about this important process. What measures are being discussed to reduce emissions from maritime shipping?Negotiations are underway at the international level to select the package of measures needed to meet the 2023 targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from shipping. This package will include both technical and economic measures. Its final structure will be decided in April this year at the IMO headquarters in London, marking a global milestone in the fight against the climate crisis.Technical measures include a global fuel standard, carbon capture on ships, energy efficiency measures for the fuels used, and reductions in ship speed. They all aim to make maritime transport as efficient as possible in terms of the fuels used and to gradually phase out the use of the most polluting fuels. This means using the least amount of energy, emitting the least amount of carbon dioxide and keeping the sector in operation.In addition to technical measures, economic measures are proposed to put a price on carbon emissions from maritime transport. Increasing the efficiency of ships is expected to have not only a technological component but also a market incentive. This combination is crucial for achieving emission reduction targets, as it will provide both the public and private sectors with the necessary resources:The economic resources to invest in the new technologies, new fuels, and other investments needed for the energy transition.An economic stimulus to close the current cost gap between fossil fuels and near-zero emission clean technologies. To define a price for carbon dioxide emissions, there are two main proposals:The first has a flexible structure with respect to emissions. In its simplest form, it takes account of differences in emissions when implementing the measure. To this end, a "permissible limit" of carbon dioxide emissions is envisaged, with ships being divided into those below and those above the limit. The former could receive a financial reward, and the latter would pay a fee for the carbon dioxide emitted under a system of emission quotas. In this sense, although there is a mechanism to regulate emissions below the set limit, the tolerance of these limits offers the possibility of an accelerated reduction, which could delay the energy transition that the climate crisis requires.The second has a universal structure, i.e. a fixed price for all CO2 emissions generated by the operation of the maritime fleet. The aim is to create a market stimulus that will increase the demand for new low-emission technologies (new ships and fuels) and encourage maritime operators to purchase them in order to avoid paying a fee. This measure is expected to provide more accurate monitoring of total emissions from ships, motivate a faster and more pronounced energy transition, and collect and then redistribute a significant number of economic resources among maritime operators and countries to mitigate the disproportionate costs and negative impacts of the decarbonization process. What does decarbonizing shipping mean for Latin America and the Caribbean?According to the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), Latin America and the Caribbean is one of the most vulnerable regions to climate change-related disasters, so actions aimed at achieving decarbonization targets in different sectors of the regional economy are essential to address the climate crisis.On the other hand, actions specifically aimed at decarbonizing maritime transport will have different impacts in the short, medium and long term in each of the countries of the continent. For example, the choice of one or the other proposal for the payment of a tariff for the sector's CO2 emissions - the flexible modality or the fixed price - will have a different impact in each country. What all scenarios have in common is that the region will be strongly affected by the process of decarbonizing maritime transport.In this context, it is important for countries to identify the scenarios that allow them a greater range of actions to compensate for these impacts and to ensure that the transition is equitable and fair, without leaving any country behind.In economic terms, the introduction of a universal price on CO2 emissions would allow States to receive part of the economic resources generated to compensate and mitigate the effects of decarbonization. The amounts and forms of this transfer of resources will be agreed within the IMO. The combination of more ambitious measures (technical and economic) is expected to raise up to $120 billion annually in the coming years. The flexible proposal for paying for emissions does not include mechanisms for redistributing resources, as these would go directly to ship operators and fuel producers. This would leave countries to mitigate the impact of decarbonization with their own resources.From an environmental perspective, without the incentive of a universal price, there is a risk that the flexible scheme will indirectly encourage the continued use of fuels that generate CO2 emissions, particularly in regions with limited economic resources to invest in the least polluting state-of-the-art technology. This would result in a delay in achieving emission reduction targets for the world's shipping fleet and would move countries away from meeting their climate change commitments under the IMO.In general, the costs of reducing CO2 emissions from shipping and other sectors, which are at the root of the current climate crisis, are a reality for all countries, although the impact varies by region. The active participation of Latin America and the Caribbean in the international discussions on this issue throughout 2025 is essential to ensure that the energy transition and the reduction of maritime emissions are fair and equitable. It is important that the countries of the continent adopt a position that allows them to protect their economic and environmental interests from the economic consequences of this process. If the IMO's decarbonization strategy does not live up to its ambitions, we will have a shipping industry that exacerbates the climate crisis and its impacts. The success of this strategy will be the achievement of a global consensus on environmental considerations. The equity and fairness of the transition must be one of the key elements. Recognizing the differentiated impacts of maritime decarbonization measures and their compensation, especially in the most affected countries, will ensure a triumph based on criteria of justice and environmental equity.

Ballenas jorobadas en el océano Pacífico

February 18 2025 Toxic Pollution, Oceans

Cetaceans and salmon farming: Challenges for the conservation of marine biodiversity in Chilean Patagonia (executive summary)

In 2018, the environmental organizations Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), Greenpeace, and the NGO FIMA joined forces to confront the threat of the expansion of salmon farming in the southern waters of Chilean Patagonia. Since then, we have been actively working to expose and stop the impacts of intensive salmon production in pristine ecosystems, including special protected areas. In 2021, a scientific study of whale-ship interactions in Chilean Patagonia was published, including a video of a blue whale navigating a high-traffic area. According to the study, the world’s largest and most endangered mammal shares space with up to 870 vessels daily in Chilean Patagonia, one of its main feeding grounds. The study confirmed that 83% of the vessels were involved in the aquaculture industry.This finding shed light on a new facet of the environmental issues facing Chilean Patagonia, home to nearly 30% of the world’s cetacean species, including the endemic Chilean dolphin. This led us to commission a scientific report from a multidisciplinary team of experts to make the information publicly available. The results provided evidence of the impacts of salmon farming on cetaceans in Chilean Patagonia and highlighted the lack of studies and information needed to understand the magnitude and consequences of these impacts, as well as the true risk involved.In addition to complementing the efforts of civil society to demonstrate the urgency of halting the expansion of salmon farming in the country’s southern seas, we hope that this report will specifically draw attention to the real and potentially irreversible problem affecting these emblematic species. We also hope that the report’s recommendations will encourage the development of conservation measures for cetaceans, even in a context of insufficient knowledge, in accordance with the Precautionary Principle — recognized in the General Fisheries and Aquaculture Law, national legislation, and international law — which establishes the obligation to act in favor of environmental protection, even in the face of uncertainty. Finally, we hope that this report will motivate further research necessary to implement concrete and effective protective measures to make our waters a safe space for whales and dolphinsRead and download the executive summary

October 24 2024 Coral reefs, Climate Change, Toxic Pollution

To defend the ocean's biodiversity is to defend human well-being

Statement by civil society organizations at COP16 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) The ocean is one of the world's main reserves of biodiversity, as well as a source of food, renewable energy and our main ally in combating the global climate crisis. Human populations, in addition to having their livelihoods in the ocean, maintain cultural connections around the ocean that define their past, present and future. However, this immense source of life continues to suffer increasingly significant damage and impacts, while efforts to protect and restore it are not increasing at the same rate.The intrinsic connection between ocean and climate itself embraces the balance of the planet. On the one hand, the ocean regulates weather patterns and, on the other, its characteristics are seriously altered by the climate crisis. The main indicators of these changes are the increase in temperature and sea level, acidification, deoxygenation, modifications in ocean currents, and a greater intensity of hurricanes and meteorological events. This affects marine biodiversity, causing the loss of particularly vulnerable species and habitat fragmentation. Coral bleaching associated with changes in climate, for example, alters the dynamics of many other species that depend on them, generating consequences for tourism, fisheries, climate resilience and biodiversity, as well as socioeconomic and cultural impacts.Overfishing puts commercial target species and coastal-marine ecosystems in general at risk. Some of the fishing practices of greatest concern are the extraction of vulnerable or endangered species; the non-compliance with or non-existence of closed fishing areas, the demarcation of fishing zones, permitted sizes and volumes; as well as the abandonment of fishing gear, which contributes to the problem of marine debris and causes the death of many animals that are trapped in them. Intensive aquaculture, such as salmon farming, directly destroys the marine ecosystem through contamination due to the constant incorporation of nutrients and the high use of antibiotics, producing anoxia and harmful algae blooms.Marine pollution from land-based sources continues to be a major stress factor for the marine environment and poses particularly serious problems in developing countries, where integrated waste management is extremely deficient. This has resulted in the introduction of polluting substances and materials into the ocean (untreated sewage, solid waste, including plastics, and agricultural runoff), causing changes in the quality conditions of the water column and sediments, often fatal to marine biodiversity and affecting human health.Likewise, maritime sources of pollutants require particular attention, as the ocean is the main means of transporting goods globally. Maritime traffic involves the transport of substances harmful to the marine environment - such as hydrocarbons, toxic chemicals, sewage, ballast water, garbage, and other hazardous substances - that are discharged into the sea in routine operational tasks and in maritime incidents. Hydrocarbons pose a particularly complex problem because they are not only transported as cargo but are also used to propel ships, thus representing a latent risk scenario with impacts on air quality due to atmospheric emissions of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides and methane, mainly in ships that use liquefied natural gas (LNG) for propulsion. In addition, the negative impact on marine fauna of collisions with ships and underwater noise from various sources cannot be ruled out; these factors still lack sufficient and effective public policies and regulations.Additionally, oil spills in the marine environment cause suffocation and intoxication of marine species, bioaccumulation of harmful substances, and even the functional destruction of important habitats. These impacts in turn affect relevant social and economic activities - such as shipping, fishing, tourism, and port activities - as well as endangering the health and the right to a healthy environment of coastal communities. Spills from offshore oil and gas exploration and exploitation are not adequately controlled and regulated by governments, being authorized activities in the vicinity of vulnerable areas such as coral reefs. These operations face serious limitations to prevent and provide timely response to spills with mitigation, restoration, and compensation actions for the damage caused. Environmental impacts from related activities, such as seismic exploration, dismantling of underwater infrastructures and platforms, and associated maritime traffic, are rarely evaluated.Finally, although there are no exploitation efforts yet, underwater mining poses risks that are impossible to assess in their magnitude, including habitat destruction, which could be irreversible, and species extinction. This is especially worrisome considering how little is known about the ecological and physicochemical dynamics in deep-sea and deep-sea ecosystems. The development of these intrusive activities - without having the technical and scientific base information that would allow us to objectively identify the potential impacts, as well as the possibility or not of preventing, mitigating or restoring damages - would doubtless cause the alteration of a highly sensitive and complex ecosystem.In consideration of the above - in our role as civil society organizations working for the protection and sustainable use of the ocean and for the defense of the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment - WE URGENTLY CALL ON THE STATES PARTY TO THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY TO: Incorporate the ecosystem approach - which notes the interdependence between the atmosphere, land, and ocean - into their national biodiversity policies, strategies, and action plans, considering the provisions set forth in the Advisory Opinion of the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea, which notes that anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions meet the definition of marine pollution under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Use environmental impact and cumulative impact assessment tools to promote transparency and citizen participation with a gender focus and with emphasis on the consultation and consent processes of groups in vulnerable situations, such as indigenous peoples and local communities, so that the traditional and cultural knowledge that comes from the territories is included and valued to promote the implementation of projects and human development activities in a responsible and fair manner, weighing the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment over short-term economic benefits. Sign, ratify, and commit to the effective implementation of the Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation, and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean (Escazú Agreement) for these rights, and establish mechanisms for transparency and accountability in any environmental proceedings. Apply the precautionary principle in the absence of certainty or scientific information and recognize technical knowledge, science, and local wisdom as the basis for decision-making processes focused on the protection of the environment and biodiversity. Sign, ratify, and commit to the effective implementation of the Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ Agreement), an instrument that will make it possible to advance in the protection of at least 2/3 of our planet. This will allow for: the equitable sharing of benefits derived from the use of marine genetic resources; the use of area-based management mechanisms, including the designation of marine protected areas; the development of environmental impact assessments prior to offshore activities; as well as capacity building and the transfer of marine technology for the benefit of the ocean. Continue to apply moratoriums on underwater mining activities based on the lack of sufficient technical and scientific information to foresee, prevent, control, and mitigate the potential impacts on the biological diversity of unknown ecosystems in deep waters and on the seabed. Sign, ratify, and commit to the effective implementation of the Agreement on Port State Measures (MERP Agreement) - to prevent, deter, and eliminate illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing - as well as the Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies, to promote fishing practices that recognize the relevance of ocean sustainability. Strengthen and harmonize regulations on fishing and aquaculture, also advancing in their correct control, with the objective of ensuring the sustainability of these activities; avoiding illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing; minimizing negative impacts on marine ecosystems and vulnerable species. Implement the Guidelines for Achieving Sustainability in Small-scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication (SSF Guidelines) in order to: recognize the contribution to the fishing economy of men and women working in all activities of the fisheries value chain; guarantee food security and the right to food; contribute to the development of communities engaged in this type of fishing; achieve sustainability of fishery resources; as well as promote culture and ancestral and traditional knowledge around fishing. Advance quickly and effectively in the process of negotiating a legally binding instrument on plastic pollution through the application of the circular economy model and responsible management throughout the entire cycle of these products. Plan mitigation and adaptation actions in the short-- and medium-term to address the effects of the climate crisis on the ocean and protect its carbon sinks through strategies and policies that contemplate the just and equitable energy transition in ocean-dependent sectors, in addition to the conservation and restoration of key ecosystems such as mangrove forests, seagrasses and coral reefs with a holistic and socio-ecological approach. The obligation of States Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to submit updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) by 2025 is an opportunity to include, as climate commitments, measures aimed at mitigating impacts on the ocean and their restoration. These measures should not be limited to the creation of carbon markets in the ocean, but rather ensure the comprehensive protection of marine and coastal ecosystems, especially considering their fundamental role in climate regulation. Sign, ratify, and commit to the effective implementation of the Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region (Cartagena Convention); prioritize the creation and application of national regulations on standards and permitted thresholds for the discharge of polluting substances into the sea, harmonized with international law, and based on follow-up and monitoring programs that respond to the dynamics of each country. Adopt relevant domestic measures to reduce anthropogenic pressures currently affecting coral reefs, slowing the processes that are causing their degradation and allowing coral cover to be maintained at minimum levels that guarantee their permanence and connectivity. These measures include: Regulating environmental impact studies and management plans for offshore hydrocarbon extractive and prospective activities and other activities carried out near coral reefs and areas sensitive to coral bleaching.Avoid authorizing offshore hydrocarbon exploration and exploitation activities near coral reefs.Regulate the transit of ships near marine protected areas and particularly sensitive marine zones in terms of ballast water pollution and other polluting technologies for the marine environment that may affect the state of coral reefs. This will also reduce the possibility of accidents and groundings. Guarantee the rights and meet the needs of coastal and island communities that live from fishing - especially artisanal fishing - and local tourism that are being affected by the climate crisis and environmental problems, seeking to protect them from the degradation of marine-coastal biodiversity. Increase governmental efforts to create and implement programs and activities for capacity building and transfer of marine technology to reduce the gaps between developing and developed countries. This will enable ocean protection to be embraced globally as a pathway to climate and environmental justice. Guarantee the financing of policies, programs, plans, studies, and regulations, ensuring the necessary budgetary allocations to safeguard and manage coastal-marine ecosystems. To this end, they should target the use of all available means within countries, as well as international climate finance funds, cooperation projects and multilateral instruments dedicated to addressing the climate crisis and the mechanisms that have been agreed upon in the framework of the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement, including the Green Climate Fund (GCF), as well as available resources from the private sector. Similarly, blue finance mechanisms that benefit vulnerable groups and have a positive impact on ocean health should be prioritized. Effective protection of our ocean is not possible without the commitment of the States Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. We therefore call for action and the definition of urgent national and international interventions to strengthen ocean governance.The risks of ignoring the accelerating impacts are too great. It is time to prioritize the health of the ocean and with it our own health. Signatory organizations:Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA).Mexican Center for Environmental Law (CEMDA)Center for Marine JusticeMesoamerican Reef Fund (MAR Fund)Cethus FoundationMarViva FoundationHealthy Reef Initiative (HRI)Coral Reef AllianceFoundation for Eco-development and Conservation (FUNDAECO)High Seas Alliance (HSA)

September 10 2024 Toxic Pollution, Freshwater Sources, Mining

Session 1 of the Transformative Global Experiences on Water Governance Webinar Series

Mining and water: social articulation, advocacy & corporate accountability around Brazil's Brumadinho tailings dam disaster The Transformative Water Pact (TWP) is an innovative framework for water governance. It consolidates vital principles and an action framework to guide decision-making toward transformative change in water management. This is achieved through an alternative vision based on principles of environmental justice, equity, and water stewardship.This webinar series aimed to facilitate a dialogue among the TWP co-authors and their allies, focusing on global South countries' water governance and justice challenges. The goal was to highlight the impact of sharing valuable global experiences in advocacy, litigation, local solutions, campaigning, and research that have contributed to advancing the protection of the right to water worldwide.In this first session, we explored - through the lens of the Transformative Water Pact - various strategies of resistance and defense that local communities and civil society have developed to facilitate the conservation of protected areas and ensure access to justice and truth for the victims of the tragedy caused by the failure of an iron mine tailings dam in Brumadinho, Brazil. PanelMurtah Shannon, Inclusive Water Governance Officer at Both ENDS.Maria Teresa Corujo Viana, member of the Movimento pela Preservação da Serra do Gandarela.Makota Cassia Kidoialê, founder of Kilombo Manzo.Carolina de Moura Campos, project coordinator at Instituto Cordilheira.Moderation: Jorge Lu Palencia, attorney with Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). Recording (in Spanish/Portuguese)

Panoramic view of the Metallurgical Complex of La Orota, Peru, in 2024.

June 20 2024 Toxic Pollution, Human Rights, Mining

La Oroya v. Peru: Historic precedent on human rights and the environment

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights set an important precedent for state oversight of industrial pollution. By Rosa Peña and Jacob Kopas*This past March, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the human rights tribunal for the Americas, released an historic ruling condemning Peru for failing to control toxic industrial pollution. The ruling set an important precedent for the right to a healthy environment and state oversight of corporate activities across the Americas.This victory began as a petition that the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) and Earthjustice, together with partner organizations, presented in 2006 on behalf of families and environmental defenders in La Oroya, a small town in the heart of the Peruvian Andes. For more than 100 years, an industrial smelter has exposed La Oroya to extreme levels of toxic pollution, leading to nearly all the town’s children having dangerously high levels of lead and other heavy metals in their blood.The court’s binding judgment is a powerful condemnation that the families of La Oroya are today using to demand concrete action from the Peruvian government. In addition to financial compensation, the court ordered Peru to halt further harmful pollution from the smelter, clean up the toxic metals in the soil and water, and provide specialized health care for the victims and inhabitants of La Oroya. The court's judgment itself also constitutes a form of reparations for the victims, by acknowledging the legitimacy of their work as environmental defenders.The significance of the ruling goes far beyond the immediate benefits for people in La Oroya and Peru. Ensuring the environmental quality of water and air in Latin America remains a major challenge across the Americas. This is the first time that the Inter-American Court has held that industrial pollution can harm human rights, opening a path to justice for communities in so-called “Sacrifice Zones” overburdened with industrial pollution.The court’s landmark ruling establishes several key precedents with significance for both international and domestic jurisprudence. Innovative new measures for collective reparations.This case went beyond previous cases by ordering not only individual reparations, but also collective reparations that benefit all inhabitants of La Oroya. These include environmental remediation of the surrounding ecosystem (para. 351), comprehensive and specialized health care for any inhabitant who presents symptoms (para. 348), and support for relocating inhabitants who wish to do so (para. 355). In addition, the court ordered differentiated measures for women, children, and elderly victims. The judgment also ordered environmental and public health measures that will improve the lives of all Peruvians impacted by the mining industry, including bringing air quality standards in line with international standards (para. 346), guaranteeing that mining companies adhere to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (para. 352), and creating an information system that proactively provides updated air and water quality data in mining areas (para. 354). Showing causality: Exposure to a significant health risk is enough to prove a human rights violation.One major obstacle to access to justice for communities exposed to dangerous pollution is showing causality, that is, proving that pollution caused a specific health condition. Showing causality is often difficult because many communities lack access to proper health care and diagnostic tests, because some conditions such as cancer can be latent and lie undetected for years, and because many different factors contribute to poor health. To account for this reality, the court held that it is sufficient to show that an exposure to pollution created a significant health risk, without having to prove that the exposure caused a concrete condition or disease (para. 204). The court also went a step further, and noted that under the precautionary principle, the lack of scientific certainty regarding those risks cannot be an excuse for failing to adopt measures to protect public health (para. 207). The right to clean air and water as substantive elements of the right to a healthy environment.In the judgment, the Court established that the right to a healthy environment includes the rights to air and water that are free of pollution which could constitute a significant risk to health and rights. These rights also entail specific obligations for states. These include:Setting environmental quality standards that do not constitute a risk to health and that are based on the best available scienceMonitoring air and water quality and providing access to information on pollution that endangers healthCreating plans to maintain air and water qualityEffectively enforcing environmental quality standards and ensuring the proper management of water resources (paras. 120-121) Access to public participation in environmental decisions.This ruling is also the first time that the Inter-American Court has condemned a state for failing to guarantee effective public participation in environmental decision-making affecting the general public (para. 256). In prior cases, the court examined the right to public participation only in the context of consultation with Indigenous Peoples, who have special protections under international law. In addition, the court held that the mere existence of formal procedures for public participation may not be sufficient for states to satisfy their obligations under the American Convention. Authorities must also ensure that these procedures provide an effective opportunity to be heard and participate in decision making (para. 260). The judgment also consolidated advances in other important issues for environmental justice in the region:Business and human rights obligations. The court emphasized states’ obligations to protect human rights and their duties to supervise and control companies (paras. 109-110). It also held that companies themselves have responsibilities to respect human rights and act with due diligence, regardless of their size, sector, operational context, ownership, or structure (para. 111).Environmental pollution violates the right to a dignified life. Because pollution impacted many different areas of the lives of families in La Oroya, it also violated their right to a dignified life. These impacts included not being able to carry out a life project under normal circumstances, which affected their personal, family, psychological, and professional development (paras. 220-230).The effects of environmental contamination fall disproportionately on individuals, groups, and communities that already bear the burden of poverty, discrimination, and systemic marginalization. The court recognized that pregnant women, children, teenagers and the elderly, who, given their condition, are frequently exposed to a greater risk of harm from pollution (para. 134). Given the principle of intergenerational equity, states have particular obligations to protect children’s health from environmental pollution and provide specialized care for those that acquired illnesses as a result of exposure (para. 141).The right to a healthy environment as jus cogens. The ruling noted that guaranteeing the interest of both present and future generations from serious, extensive, long-lasting, and irreversible damage to the environment is fundamental for the survival of humanity. The court thereby called on the international community to recognize such environmental harm as violating a preemptory norm (jus cogens) of international law (para. 129).Weakening air quality standards violates international law. The court found that when Peru rolled back national air quality standards for sulfur dioxide, it violated its duty against retrogressive measures inherent in the right to a healthy environment (paras. 182-186). The court held that any such rollbacks must be justified in light of the state’s maximum available resources for guaranteeing human rights and be consistent with the precautionary principle (para. 186).Obligation of active transparency when guaranteeing access to information. This case is the first time the court has found a state responsible for failing its obligation of “active transparency,” which requires states to not only respond to requests for accessing environmental information, but also to actively distribute and publicize environmental information (para. 247). This information must be complete, comprehensible, and in an accessible language (para. 255). The ruling is poised to a significant legal precedent for the many communities affected by industrial pollution. Its ultimate impact will depend on how it is implemented by courts in Peru and throughout Latin America. In Peru alone, the Peruvian Human Rights Ombudsman estimated that over 10 million people (31% of the population) are at risk of exposure to heavy metal pollutants and other chemicals related to the mining industry. With this new ruling as a powerful legal tool, hopefully other communities will not have to wait 100 years to finally breath clean air. Learn more about the legal contributions of the ruling of the Inter-American Court in the La Oroya case *Rosa Peña is a senior attorney with AIDA's Human Rights and Environment Program; Jacob Kopas is a senior attorney with Earthjustice's International Program.

June 04 2024 Climate Change, Toxic Pollution, Human Rights

Maritime shipping: what’s being done to reduce emissions?

Maritime transport is the activity of moving goods from one destination to another by sea. It is fundamental to trade and accounts for 80% of global shipping.However, it is also a major source of pollution, particularly greenhouse gases that warm the planet and other pollutants that harm human health.The sector therefore needs to decarbonize its activities by reducing its emissions, both in transport and in the loading and unloading of goods at ports around the world. How many emissions does international shipping produce?Every year, 10 billion tons of cargo are transported by sea, accounting for 2.9% of global greenhouse gas emissions - including carbon dioxide (CO₂) - a percentage close to that of Japan. This is because ships use enormous amounts of oil to move, emitting nearly 1 billion tons of greenhouse gases.The above figures do not include emissions generated at cargo ports, which are not automated and use fossil fuels. The main energy source for ships moving goods around the world is heavy fuel oil, a highly polluting fossil fuel that produces CO₂ emissions that accelerate global warming.In 2023, greenhouse gas emissions from shipping will be 20% higher than they were 10 years ago, according to the United Nations. And projections published by the European Environment Agency indicate that they could reach 17% of global emissions by 2050 if no action is taken to decarbonize the sector.The warming and subsequent melting of the Arctic - the geographic region around the North Pole - is evidence of the impact of shipping emissions on the global climate:According to the Clean Arctic Alliance, the Arctic —one of the world's most important climate regulators— is warming up to four times faster than the rest of the planet.Much of this is due to emissions of black carbon, or soot, from shipping, which is the residue left after heavy fuel is burned on ships.Black carbon is emitted in both gaseous and solid forms. As a gas, it contributes to the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere; as a solid particle, it accelerates the melting of snow and ice. How do ship emissions affect human health?International shipping generates pollutants such as black carbon and particulate matter that affect human health.According to the Barcelona Institute for Global Health, which reviewed 32 studies on shipping emissions, the industry could be responsible for an estimated 265,000 premature deaths worldwide in 2020. This means that 0.5% of global mortality would be associated with its emissions.Although air pollution from shipping is a global problem, it disproportionately affects coastal populations, especially those living near ports and other industrial facilities. Who is responsible for preventing emissions from shipping?The International Maritime Organization (IMO) is the specialized agency of the United Nations responsible for setting standards for safe, efficient, and environmentally sound shipping. In 2023, the 175 countries that make up the IMO agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from industry by 20-30% (compared to 2008) by 2030 and by at least 70% by 2040. The pact is complemented by a target to achieve a zero emissions balance (so that gases released into the atmosphere are neutralized or offset by sinks) by "around 2050."Within this framework, meetings at the IMO in the coming months and until April 2025 will focus on achieving the decarbonization of shipping through a just energy transition.During this period, a range of technical and economic measures will be analyzed and discussed to achieve the objectives of the Ship Emissions Reduction Strategy.The main challenges of these efforts include:Meeting market demand for zero emission fuels in the volume required to power the entire global marine fleet.Bridging the cost gap between fossil fuels and low-emission fuels.Enabling ships to adapt their technology for a rapid transition to cleaner fuels. The process of decarbonizing maritime transport will require the combined efforts of various actors: States, companies, NGOs, and international governance organizations.It is a complex process that involves the entire global shipping chain. For the decarbonization of the sector to be equitable, it is necessary to take into account shared responsibilities as well as the different needs and capacities of countries in the face of the costs of phasing out fossil fuels in maritime transport.It must also consider the impact that global warming is already having on economically and climatically vulnerable countries, such as islands, least developed and developing countries.Sources- International Maritime Organization, "Introduction to the IMO".- Natalie Mueller, "Maritime transport: the forgotten pollution", Barcelona Institute for Global Health.- Michelle Carrere, "Agreements to reduce shipping emissions considered ‘weak’ by environmental organizations", Mongabay.-Paula Mateu, "Maritime transport will reduce emissions by 30% in 2030 but NGOs see it as insufficient", La Vanguardia.

Vista panorámica de La Oroya, Perú, en 2024.

May 24 2024 Toxic Pollution, Human Rights, Mining

Warning of increased contamination in La Oroya and slow progress by the State to comply with the Inter-American Court ruling

The State's progress in implementing the international court's ruling has been slow and insufficient. Meanwhile, a high level of sulphur dioxide has recently been registered in the Andean city due to the partial reactivation of the metallurgical complex and the lack of prevention, warning, monitoring and control measures by the state. Two months after the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued its ruling in the case "La Oroya Community vs. Peru," the Inter-American Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) and the Pro Human Rights Association (APRODEH), organizations that legally represent the victims, warned at a press conference that the Peru is making slow and insufficient progress in effectively complying with the ruling.The ruling, issued on March 22 and considered a landmark in international law, established Peru’s responsibility for violating the rights of La Oroya residents affected by decades of toxic contamination.The international tribunal ordered comprehensive remedial measures, including environmental cleanup, reduction and mitigation of polluting emissions, air quality monitoring, free and specialized medical care, compensation, and a resettlement plan for the affected people. Increased pollution in La OroyaThe organizations also denounced that the government’s slow action is occurring in the midst of an increase in the presence of toxic contamination in the area due to the partial reactivation of the La Oroya Metallurgical Complex and the lack of prevention, warning, monitoring and control measures by the state.According to the Environmental Monitoring System of the Environmental Evaluation and Control Agency, a high presence of sulfur dioxide has recently been recorded in La Oroya, which makes it imperative that Peru take urgent action based on its international responsibility.One of the measures ordered by the Inter-American Court is to ensure that the operations of the La Oroya Metallurgical Complex comply with international environmental standards, preventing and mitigating damage to the environment and human health. Challenges in implementing the rulingDuring the press conference, Rosa Peña, Senior Attorney for AIDA's Human Rights and Environment Program, said: "The ruling is a great opportunity for the State of Peru to prevent and better manage the environmental impacts of mining and metallurgical activities, as well as to improve health care for people exposed to contamination. The Court has already identified the key aspects, now it is up to the State as a whole to ensure a good implementation that will serve as an example for other cases at national and international levels."Christian Huaylinos, coordinator of the legal sector of APRODEH, emphasized the need for an articulated multisectoral work: "A coordinated effort of the three levels of the state—local, regional and national—is needed to advance in the effective compliance of the sentence. In addition, clear mechanisms must be put in place to ensure the effective participation of victims in the implementation of the orders issued by the Court." Community demandsYolanda Zurita, a petitioner in the case, emphasized the community's frustration with the lack of prompt and effective action: "We, as a population, need to feel and see that there is compliance. It is not possible that after 20 years of litigation, and after the Court's ruling has been made public, there are officials who claim to be ignoring the ruling."The Inter-American Court's ruling not only focuses on reparations for direct victims, but also includes restitution measures and guarantees of non-repetition for the entire population of La Oroya and the country. It defines parameters for the proper conduct of mining and metallurgical operations in Peru, in defense of the environment and health.The ruling is an important precedent for the protection of the right to a healthy environment in Latin America and for adequate state oversight of corporate activities.AIDA and APRODEH urge the Peruvian government to comply with the measures ordered by the Inter-American Court and to take immediate action to protect the environment and health of the community of La Oroya.Press contactVíctor Quintanilla-Sangüeza (Mexico), AIDA, [email protected], +52 5570522107

Vista panorámica de La Oorya, Perú, en 2016

April 15 2024 Mining, Toxic Pollution, Human Rights

Community of La Oroya wins landmark ruling to stop environmental damage in Latin America

After more than 20 years, the residents of the town of La Oroya in the Peruvian Andes have found justice, opening a major new avenue for protecting a healthy environment throughout the continent. In an unprecedented decision, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights found Peru guilty of violating their human rights by failing to act in a timely and effective manner to protect them from extreme levels of pollution from a metallurgical complex that has operated in their community for nearly 90 years. "Twenty years ago, when this struggle began, I carried my banner saying that children's health is worth more than gold," recalls Don Pablo, a resident of La Oroya. "We never gave up, and now I am very happy with the Court's decision.” La Oroya is located in the central mountain range of Peru, in the department of Junín, approximately 176 km from Lima. In 1992, the US company Cerro de Pasco Cooper Corporation installed the La Oroya Metallurgical Complex to process ore concentrates. The complex was nationalized in 1974 and operated by the state until 1997, when it was taken over by Doe Run Peru, which operated it until 2009. For generations, the inhabitants of La Oroya have inhaled toxic substances that pose serious risks to human health. Heavy metal contamination has invaded their respiratory system, traveled through their bloodstream, and been imperceptibly deposited in several of their vital organs. Most of those affected had lead levels above those recommended by the World Health Organization, and in some cases higher levels of arsenic and cadmium, in addition to stress, anxiety, skin disorders, stomach problems, chronic headaches, and respiratory or cardiac problems. In 1997, AIDA became involved in defending the rights of the La Oroya community. Our publication La Oroya No Espera (La Oroya Cannot Wait), published in 2002, helped bring the gravity of the situation to international attention. In 2006, in the absence of effective responses in Peru, we joined an international coalition of organizations in filing a complaint against Peru before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. In 2021, the Commission established the responsibility of the Peruvian government in the case and referred it to the Inter-American Court. In October 2022, more than 16 years after the complaint was filed, the victims presented the case to the Court in a public hearing, represented by AIDA and the Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos (APRODEH), with the support of Earthjustice. Since 2009, when the metallurgical complex ceased operations due to Doe Run Peru's financial crisis, the levels of heavy metal contamination have not been reduced to acceptable levels. Nor has the situation of those affected improved significantly in recent years. Although the Peruvian government has known since 2009 that all children living near the complex are suffering from lead poisoning, it has not provided them with adequate medical care. But there is no deadline that will not be met. On March 22, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights gave a powerful response to more than two decades of seeking justice. The Court found that Peru was guilty of violating the rights to a healthy environment, health, personal integrity, life with dignity, access to information, political participation, judicial guarantees, and judicial protection of the 80 people involved in the case; of violating the rights of the children of 57 victims; and of violating the right to life of two others. "This is the first judgment that recognizes the international responsibility of a state for violating the right to a healthy environment and other related rights," says Rosa Peña, AIDA Senior Attorney. Ver esta publicación en Instagram In addition, the Court ordered the State to adopt measures of integral reparation for the damage caused to the people of La Oroya. These include the prosecution and punishment of those who harassed the residents for their environmental defense work; the preparation of a remediation plan for air, soil, and water contamination; the provision of free and specialized medical care to the victims, as well as to other residents with symptoms and illnesses related to mining and metallurgical activities; the updating of air quality regulations to ensure the protection of the environment and human health; the provision of monetary compensation to the victims; and the creation of an air, water, and soil quality monitoring system. It also ordered that the operations of the La Oroya Metallurgical Complex—which was transferred to the workers of Doe Run Peru as part of the company's liquidation—comply with international environmental standards and prevent and mitigate damage to the environment and human health. The Court's decision is not only a unique opportunity to restore the dignity and rights of the people of La Oroya. Its scope extends beyond the Peruvian context, making it an important precedent in Latin America for the protection of the right to a healthy environment and for adequate state oversight of corporate activities. Among other things, the Court established the obligations of states to regulate, monitor and control air and water quality, to identify sources of pollution, and to implement plans to enforce air and water quality standards. The Court held that in order to establish state liability for environmental damage, it is sufficient to show that the state, despite being aware of the existence of high levels of pollution, failed to take adequate measures and thus allowed the pollution to continue, thereby posing a significant risk to human health. In light of the judgment, states must prevent human rights abuses by public and private enterprises. Businesses, for their part, must prevent their activities from causing or contributing to human rights abuses and take steps to remedy such abuses. Defending the right to a healthy environment has been part of AIDA's history since our inception and has always been a collective effort. We celebrate and recognize all the people who, from different sectors, roles and capacities, made possible the historic result of the La Oroya case. With renewed vigor, we will work for the proper implementation of the judgment and for the establishment of new important precedents that will guarantee in practice the universal right to a healthy environment in the region.