Toxic Pollution

Vista áerea de la Fundición Ventanas en la comuna de Puchuncaví, Chile

July 21 2023 Toxic Pollution, Climate Change, Human Rights

When the energy transition isn’t just: The case of Quintero and Puchuncaví in Chile

By Cristina Lux and Florencia Ortúzar * The energy transition in Chile will inevitably occur. In fact, it is already underway. The country doesn’t have large deposits of fossil fuels, but it does have abundant renewable energy resources. It only makes sense, then, that prior dependence on coal should naturally shift to the sun, wind and other renewable sources. Today, after decades of struggle by local communities, the closure of Chile’s original 28 coal-fired thermoelectric power plants is underway as part of the Decarbonization Plan promoted by the government in 2019. Eight have closed, six others have a future closure date, six more are in the process of establishing one, and eight do not yet have a closure plan. If the government and private actors deliver as promised, the thermoelectric plants as a whole should close before 2040, freeing Chile from the energy derived from burning coal. But the history of coal dependence will undoubtedly leave a deep mark. For many years, Chile obtained more than 50 percent of its energy from thermoelectric plants, all located in just five locations, known as "sacrifice zones." The people who live in those areas have long suffered at the expense of generating electricity for the rest of the country. The story of one of the most emblematic of Chile’s sacrifice zones, the bay of Quintero and Puchuncaví, demonstrates why the transition not only must occur, but why it has to be just. A beautiful seaside resort battered by pollution With a little more than 40 thousand inhabitants, the bay of Quintero and Puchuncaví is located two hours by road from the country's capital. The families there have historically lived from agriculture, artisanal fishing and tourism, ways of life that have been extinguished by the relentless advance of intensive industrial activity. Photo: Claudia Pool / @claudiapool_foto / www.claudiapool.com Today, the site is home to more than 30 different companies: a coal-fired thermoelectric complex, gas-fired thermoelectric plants, a copper refinery and a petroleum refinery, a regasification port, a cement plant, ports that receive coal and other fuels, as well as coal and ash storage centers, among others. Public information regarding the emissions of this mix of companies is deficient and the lack of regulations governing them is abysmal. In fact, only a few pollutants are regulated. The rest are not even measured, despite the fact that several are dangerous to human health. And so, paradoxically, the monitoring stations show normal levels as people are being intoxicated in the streets and schools. In the bay there are often mass poisonings of adults and youth, many of whom end up in the hospital. In these cases, schools are closed, but businesses are not, and the wind is monitored to activate protocols in case of poor ventilation. The blame is placed on the lack of wind instead of on those responsible for the pollution. It’s also common to see coal deposits on the beaches, which stain the sands. In 2022 alone, more than 100 episodes were recorded. It’s alarming how the situation affects local children, who are particularly vulnerable to pollution due to its effects on human development. The impact on women is also disproportionate, as they are the first to be forced to leave their jobs to care for sick family members since they bear the brunt of the care work. Things have not been done well in this beautiful coastal area. Today, new projects and the expansion of industrial operations continue to be approved. But the community is rising up, demanding a truce for this area. It is time to move towards ecological restoration in Quintero and Puchuncaví. Signs of hope Some recent events are giving hope that things could improve in the bay and that this area, which for years has been sacrificed in favor of the rest of the country, could once again show its beautiful beaches and wonderful fishing and agricultural resources to Chile and the world. Although the situation is not yet cause for celebration, some things seem to be moving in the right direction. One important step was the environmental damages lawsuit filed in 2016 by local communities against the government and all the companies in the industrial corridor. The process has been long, but a final judgment is expected soon. Meanwhile, in 2019, the Supreme Court resolved several appeals for protection for episodes of mass intoxications, giving reason to the communities and issuing a landmark ruling, perhaps the most important on environmental matters in Chile. The ruling orders the State to comply with 15 measures to identify the sources of contamination and repair the environmental situation in the area. Sadly, this ruling has not yet been properly implemented. Moving forward, the Supreme Court recently issued three rulings that refer to non-compliance with the 2019 ruling and provide tools to enforce compliance. Also, two of the four thermoelectric plants of the U.S.-owned AES Andes have closed operations in the bay. Two remain. Finally, in May, after 58 years of operation, the furnaces and boiler of the Ventanas Smelter were finally shut down. Thus, the icon of pollution in the area—a 158-meter chimney that consistently expelled pollutants—ceased to operate. The search for justice is far from over Despite the good signs, there is still no secure future for the people of Quintero and Puchuncaví. That’s why we must continue to demand justice and a transition that protects the most vulnerable people. Photo: Claudia Pool / @claudiapool_foto / www.claudiapool.com Although two of the four AES Andes thermoelectric plants operating in the bay have closed, the companies that owned them have been granted "strategic reserve status," whereby they are paid to remain available to operate again if required. On the other hand, although the copper smelter of the state-owned Corporación Nacional del Cobre closed, the refinery continues to operate in the area. There was a relocation plan for the workers, but no remediation plan for the communities that for almost six decades breathed the toxic waste of that industry. In addition, projects continue to be approved without the participation of the communities. This is the case of the Aconcagua desalination plant, which intends to desalinate water to transport it through subway pipes over 100 km to supply the Angloamerican mining company. Last but not least, decarbonization in Chile seems to bring an increase in the use of gas, which has been falsely labeled as a "transition fuel." It’s expected that gas activity in the area—which hosts one of the country's two LNG (liquefied natural gas) regasification ports—could intensify and, with it, so could its environmental impacts. Chile has the opportunity to set an example of just transition Chile, located at the end of the continent, has the opportunity to do things right. There are indications they’re moving in the right direction; the only thing missing is the political will to change course. The region of Quintero and Puchuncaví deserves the opportunity to shine again and to reach its full potential as a colorful coastal town and seaside resort with an identity rooted in agriculture, tourism and artisanal fishing. In this case, a truly just transition must include the closure of polluting companies that are making people sick. But it must also involve the participation of those people affected, putting the respect of their human rights at the forefront—a respect that was so diminished over the last six decades. The injustice that has weighed on the territory and its inhabitants must be recognized—establishing reparation mechanisms, ensuring non-repetition, and involving the people themselves in the environmental recovery of the area. Only in this way will the communities recover their capacity for agency—that power to decide and to be part of the decisions that affect them—which was taken away from them so many years ago. *Cristina Lux is an attorney with AIDA's Climate Program and Florencia Ortúzar is a senior attorney with AIDA.

May 31 2023 Oceans, Public Participation, Toxic Pollution

Offshore drilling: Resisting a growing threat in Latin America

Offshore drilling is expanding in Latin America and the Caribbean as part of a government and business strategy implying the continuity of the oil and gas industry, despite the role of fossil fuels in aggravating the global climate crisis. The advance of offshore hydrocarbon activity also risks serious damage to the ocean—our planet's greatest climate regulator—the vast biodiversity it harbors, and to the livelihoods of coastal communities. Worldwide, offshore areas represent 30 percent of total hydrocarbon reserves and are concentrated in surface waters up to 125 meters deep, according to academic research. The United States, Mexico, Norway, Brazil and Saudi Arabia are the main producers, accounting for 43 percent of the world total. The current expansion of drilling in Latin America is tending towards extremes with greater environmental complexity, in ultra-deep waters, with wells that exceed 1,500 meters in depth. The authorization of new offshore drilling projects deepens dependence on the use of fossil fuels, representing a step backwards in global efforts to avoid global warming with catastrophic consequences. It also constitutes an obstacle in the transition towards sustainable energy systems, based on renewable sources and respectful of people and the environment. However, there are cases in the region that demonstrate a growing collective resistance to the blind advance of offshore drilling projects. With the help of strategic litigation and citizen participation, these cases are creating an opportunity to set important precedents at national and international levels for the protection of the environment, the climate and human rights from the damages caused by offshore drilling. In defense of the Argentine Sea In May 2019, the Energy Secretariat awarded several companies a total of 18 areas (225,000 square kilometers of surface area) in the Argentine Sea—a sector of the Southwest Atlantic Ocean—for the search for gas and oil. In December 2021, the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development authorized a seismic exploration project in three of the awarded areas, located off the coast of the province of Buenos Aires, about 300 kilometers from the beaches of Mar del Plata, one of the country’s most popular beaches. The project includes the drilling of an exploratory well, and is being managed by the Norwegian state-owned company Equinor, the Argentine YPF and the Anglo-Dutch Shell. The governmental decision has been questioned and rejected by the scientific community and by the assemblies of several coastal cities. In January 2022–in view of the threats to biodiversity, climate and local economies posed by the prospecting and possible exploitation of hydrocarbons off the Argentine coast—scientific groups and environmental organizations filed a class action lawsuit before a Federal Court in Mar del Plata against the Argentine State, the Ministry of Environment and the Secretariat of Energy, requesting the nullity of the resolution authorizing the seismic exploration project and the process by which the 18 areas of the Argentine Sea were licensed off. The lawsuit was followed by protests in the streets and other actions, which have swelled into an ongoing legal battle. In February 2022, the court temporarily suspended seismic exploration through a precautionary measure. However, in December of that year, the Court of Appeals lifted that suspension. This decision was appealed before the Supreme Court of Justice, which has not yet ruled on the matter. Moratorium at risk in Belize In October 2017, the government of Belize established by law a permanent moratorium on oil activity in its maritime zone. This occurred after an informal referendum organized by environmental groups in 2012 resulted in 96 percent of participants voting against oil activity; and after the global outrage generated in October 2016 by the government's decision to allow seismic testing for oil exploration just one kilometer away from the Belize Barrier Reef, one of the most diverse ecosystems in the world. However, offshore hydrocarbon exploitation is still a risk for the Caribbean nation. In 2022, the Prime Minister expressed the government's willingness to allow seismic exploration without lifting the moratorium. In view of this, organizations dedicated to environmental protection seek to reinforce the prohibition by forcing a referendum on whether or not to lift the moratorium. Court victory in Guyana In Guyana, since the early 2000s there have been reports of discoveries of large offshore oil and gas reserves in the so-called Guyana Suriname Basin. Guyana is the South American nation with the most oil reserves discovered in the last decade, and has decided to expand its gas reserves as well. Offshore gas production in Guyana has also been the subject of controversy due to environmental and safety concerns. Recently, a court decision rejected an attempt by multinational ExxonMobil and the government to dissolve the written commitment that obliges the company to bear all cleanup, restoration, and damage compensation costs of any oil spill in its offshore operations. The judge in the case found that ExxonMobil is in violation of the permit issued to the Liza 1 project—which requires financial guarantees in case of oil spills and accidents—and that Guyana's environmental regulators are not enforcing the terms of the permit. Biodiversity and climate defense Carrying out offshore hydrocarbon exploration and/or exploitation projects may involve the violation of international commitments, including those undertaken by States under the Convention on Biological Diversity, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Convention on Migratory Species. Offshore seismic exploration generates sounds at levels far in excess of natural levels. Many of these overlap with the hearing and vocalization ranges of marine species (mammals, turtles, fish, diving birds and others). This can cause serious injuries, long-term physical and physiological effects and even death, explains Pablo García Borbroglu, expert and leader of the Global Penguin Society, while affirming that it can also lead to a reduction in fishing activity. The impacts of the drilling are not limited to the exploited area, but affect the entire sea and all the species that inhabit it, aggravating the precarious situation of a large number of already threatened or endangered species. The expansion of the offshore industry also implies nations are failing to comply with global commitments to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, or adopt measures aimed at the management of key ecosystems such as marine areas, both contained in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement. The cases described above, which bring together diverse voices under a common cause, have the potential to establish precedents that will force States to take responsibility for the possible environmental and social consequences of endorsing harmful industries such as offshore hydrocarbons. They are key opportunities for courts and other decision-making bodies to set exemplary precedents for the hemisphere in the protection of the environment and human rights, especially in the face of the global climate and biodiversity crises.

April 19 2023 Mining, Toxic Pollution, Climate Change

Latin America's role in coal extraction and use

The extraction, transport, use and export of coal to generate electricity are major causes of both the climate crisis and systematic human rights violations. Forty-four percent of global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels come from the use of coal, and the entire coal chain creates serious social, environmental and human rights impacts including forced displacement, water pollution and disease. In its most recent report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reiterated that, in order to avoid a catastrophic rise in the planet's average temperature, 80 percent of coal reserves must remain underground and that the use of coal for power generation must be phased out by 2050. However, according to the International Energy Agency, coal consumption reached 8 billion tons for the first time at the close of 2022, representing a 1.2 percent growth in global demand. These figures could rise further in 2023 and stabilize in the following two years, according to forecasts by the energy arm of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. This is partly because, to cope with gas shortages due to the war in Ukraine, Europe plans to relax emission controls regarding fuels like coal. This contradicts the Glasgow Climate Pact (2021) in which States agreed to gradually reduce its use. Latin America is no stranger to this situation. The region participates both in the burning of coal and in the extraction of the mineral which, after being exported, is used as a fossil energy source in other corners of the world. Colombia is the fifth largest coal exporter in the world and Mexico represents the fourteenth largest emitter of greenhouse gases. Governments in the region therefore have a shared responsibility in global efforts to curb the exploitation and burning of coal in favor of energy systems based on non-conventional renewable sources that are sustainable over time and respectful of the environment and people. The story of coal in Latin America, and the pressing need for decarbonization, can be told by taking a closer look at the cases of Chile, Colombia and Mexico. Chile: progress and challenges of decarbonization In Chile, coal-fired power generation is the main cause of serious impacts on the ecosystems and the health of people living in so-called Sacrifice Zones. Historically, pollution from coal-fired power plants—there were, at one time, 28 in operation—has been concentrated in these geographic areas, resulting in toxic air and one of the country’s greatest socio-environmental problems. In recent years, the Andean nation has seen progress toward the decarbonization of its electricity sector. Between October 2021 and September 2022, 27.5 percent of Chile’s electricity came from solar and wind sources—representing the first time renewables surpassed coal use, which fell to 26.5 percent after being the main source for more than a decade. In 2019, the Chilean government committed to closing all coal plants by 2040. Since that public announcement, the timetable has been accelerating. The initial proposal was to close eight thermoelectric plants by 2024 and the remaining 20 by 2040. Now, 65 percent of the plants are scheduled to close by 2025. A bill approved in June 2021 by the Chamber of Deputies and Chamber of Deputies backed the change, which now awaits Senate endorsement. Despite the progress, some experts say that Chile’s roadmap may not be entirely feasible and could increase diesel use in the short term. There is also an imminent risk that rapid decarbonization becomes an excuse to increase the use of gas, ignoring its risks and its role in the country's greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the government has committed to carbon neutrality by 2050 based on scenarios that include an increased use of gas, but fail to recognize a greater use of diesel. Moving forward, it’s important that Chile’s decarbonization plan contains provisions to prevent continued and increased use of gas. On the contrary, a progressive plan must promote the implementation of renewable energies, encourage distributed generation and increase energy efficiency. A comprehensive plan must also include measures to adequately address energy poverty, and to relocate and reemploy people who lose their jobs due to the energy transition. Only then will it be truly responsible and fair. Colombia: the damages of coal mining and exports Colombia is the world's fifth largest coal exporter, with only 8 percent of the extracted coal being used for domestic consumption. Coal is the mineral that contributes most to the national economy, accounting for more than 80 percent of mining royalties. Yet poverty levels in the departments where 90 percent of the extraction takes place—La Guajira and Cesar—far exceed the national average. Much of Colombia’s coal extraction occurs in El Cerrejón, the largest open-pit coal mine in Latin America. Its operation and growth over the last 40 years has destroyed rivers, streams and endemic ecosystems like the tropical dry forest; polluted the air, causing serious health consequences; and continuously violated the rights of Wayuu, Afro-descendant and rural populations in La Guajira. At the 27th UN Conference on Climate Change (COP27), the current Colombian government announced its intention to reduce the exploitation of fossil fuels and undertake a gradual energy transition. However, to date, the climate impacts of coal mining have not been evaluated, no legislation has been passed on the closure of mines currently in operation, and there’s a lack of certainty around the future growth (or not) of the 1,774 existing coal-focused titles or new investments in the sector. At the same time, Germany has increased its imports of Colombian coal due to the scarcity of gas in Europe. And purchases from the European market increased between January and November 2022, although Asia and the Americas are still the main buyers of the Colombian mineral. These exports demonstrate that the impacts of burning coal anywhere in the world are global—just as multinational corporations have a responsibility in the human rights violations derived from their coal mining in Colombia, the Colombian government has a responsibility in the aggravation of the climate crisis due to coal’s extraction and sale. Achieving a just transition in Colombia requires—among other things—building inclusive and participatory spaces, developing and implementing standards for the responsible closure of coal mines, and creating policies that allow for the adequate economic and social reconversion of those people most affected by the process. Mexico: the backlash of betting on coal and other fossil fuels In 2020, coal-fired power plants produced 10 percent of Mexico’s electricity and emitted 22 percent of the energy sector's total greenhouse gases, according to calculations by the Mexico Climate Initiative. Coal production and electricity generation from the mineral are concentrated in the state of Coahuila, where 99 percent of Mexico's coal is mined in just five municipalities. The origins and cultural identity of this region lie in coal mining, which dates back more than 200 years and still sustains the economy of 160,000 people. At the same time, the coal business has brought air and water pollution, disease and death. According to the historical record kept by victims' families, since coal mining began, more than 3,100 miners have died in the area. Two of the three coal-fired power plants operating in the country are in Coahuila; the other is in Guerrero and is fueled by imported coal. Those two plants consume almost half of the mineral extracted in the region and create more than 60 percent of the energy. Air pollution from burning coal causes around 430 deaths a year in Coahuila from respiratory diseases, according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air. According to 2019 data, Mexico is the 14th largest emitter of greenhouse gases globally—69.5 percent of its emissions come from the energy sector. Under the current government, energy policy shifted from expanding renewable energy projects to prioritizing the use of fossil fuels and promoting state dominance through the Federal Electricity Commission (CFE) and the state-owned petroleum company PEMEX. In fact, in 2022, coal-based energy production in Mexico increased 63 percent from the previous year. Environmental organizations have pointed out that "prioritizing electricity generation from CFE plants implies guaranteeing the burning of more coal and fuel oil indefinitely, and the development of new fossil gas infrastructure, which would tie us to US gas imports or the development of fracking projects in the north of the country with the consequent negative social and environmental impacts." It’s clear that Latin America has a role in the extraction and use of coal, as well as in its social and environmental impacts. For the region, a just transition towards other forms of energy generation must take into account the particularities of each country, be orderly and have a human rights and gender approach. This implies, among other things: considering the local communities that depend on the coal chain; designing policies to identify and manage the economic and social impacts of the transition; placing alternatives to coal at the center of the discussion; and developing broad and participatory decision-making processes with an active role for the urban and rural population. To achieve this, governments must take decisive action to ensure compliance with their climate and human rights commitments.

November 17 2022 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

November 03 2022 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.

October 05 2022 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

September 07 2022 Toxic Pollution, Climate Change, Human Rights

An alliance for clean air in Latin America is born

In the face of environmental injustices, like poor air quality and its harm to human health, our societies respond together and organize in similar ways, without even knowing it. This was one of the takeaways from the Latin American Meeting for Clean Air, which in early August brought together researchers, government officials, youth leaders, civil society representatives and international cooperation agencies from Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico and Peru. They met with three main objectives: to strengthen the link between air quality and climate justice, to exchange lessons learned, and to build networks for international collaboration. "Poor air quality and related health problems are a common problem in Latin America, knowing no borders or territorial boundaries," explained Anaid Velasco, Research Manager at the Mexican Center for Environmental Law (CEMDA). According to the World Health Organization, air pollution affects close to 90 percent of people living in urban areas around the world. Despite the magnitude of the problem, public actions and policies to improve the air we breathe are not fully standardized. In addition, air quality indices across the region are not uniform and do not allow people to be adequately informed of the dangers of air pollution in different environments. This represents a problem and, at the same time, an opportunity to collaboratively create and refine tools. Aware of the opportunity, meeting participants founded the Latin American Coalition for Clean Air (ALAIRE) to respond to three primary goals: To position a narrative that makes air quality a strategic priority in the public health and climate crisis management agendas in Latin America. To influence authorities and promote public policies that contribute to an improved management of the sources that contribute to poor air quality in the region. To advocate for conditions for civil society and the business sector to become involved in compliance with regulations, policies and the improvement of air quality in the continent. "The creation of this coalition is a fundamental step towards improving the air we breathe, across the region," Velasco said. "CEMDA is very proud to be part of it as clean air is a fundamental condition to guaranteeing the human right to a healthy environment." The Latin American Meeting for Clean Air was organized by AIDA, El Derecho a No Obedecer (a project of Corporación Otraparte), Trébola Organización Ecológica, Coalición Respirar, El Poder del Consumidor and the Heinrich Böll Foundation. It had open activities attended by 200 people, as well as closed meetings to reach agreements among the key organizations. The meeting served to reaffirm that the fight for clean air is also the fight to reduce greenhouse gases and confront the climate crisis, as well as a necessity to guarantee the right to health of people in the region. The event also confirmed the importance of citizen science, in which individuals are working to demonstrate the true levels of exposure to poor air quality in different cities in the region, in turn highlighting the urgency to act. The newly formed coalition will empower the efforts of citizens, academics, organizations and other actors, while contributing to the achievement of regional agreements for the development and implementation of public policies that improve air quality and protect human health.

July 22 2022 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

July 08 2022 Fracking, Freshwater Sources, Toxic Pollution

In regressive decision, high court endorses fracking in Colombia

Bogotá, Colombia. Colombia’s highest administrative court, the Council of State, on Thursday ruled against a lawsuit that sought to nullify the government’s regulation of fracking, effectively endorsing the controversial technique’s implementation in the Andean nation. The nullity lawsuit was filed by the Public Interest Law Clinic of the Universidad del Norte—which was jointly advised by AIDA, Corporación Podion, and the legal clinics of Universidad Javeriana and Universidad de los Andes—in an attempt to challenge the legality of the rules that would allow for fracking operations in the country, found in 2013’s Decree 3004 and 2014’s Resolution 90341. This decision means the suspension of Colombia’s judicial moratorium on fracking, which has been in place since 2018, when the when the Council preventively suspended the rules based on the precautionary principle and due to the lack of certainty about the risks of irreversible damage that the technique implies for the environment, climate and public health. Fracking has been assessed by national and international academics and scientists as an experimental technique that threatens air, water, human health, democratic participation, social fabric and culture, traditional knowledge systems, biodiversity and, in the long term, economic, seismic and climatic stability. In addition, it creates atmospheric pollution due to the emission of methane—a potent gas whose warming potential is 84 to 87 times greater than carbon dioxide on a 20-year scale. While the Council of State's ruling ratifies the government's regulations and lifts the moratorium, it does not exonerate national and local authorities from protecting the environment and respecting the fundamental rights of the population as they consolidate the mining and energy policy. Legal experts who brought the case before the Court respond to the ruling: "In Latin America and around the world, many countries have banned fracking because of its impacts on the environment and on the protection of human rights. The ruling of Colombia’s Council of State is regressive and goes against international advances on environmental, climate and human rights issues.” - Yeny Rodríguez, attorney with the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) "The Council of State has issued a decision contrary to the facts proven in the litigation. They have ignored the survey conducted by the National University of Colombia, the report of the expert commission, the concept of the Attorney General's Office, and the rest of the documentary evidence and scientific texts that clearly demonstrated the need to prohibit this technique under the precautionary principle. In addition, the ruling ignores Colombia's international climate commitments and the principle of intergenerational solidarity, as it ignores the fundamental rights of future generations." - Juan Pablo Sarmiento, plaintiff’s attorney in the case. “The Council of State lost a great opportunity to strengthen, through the courts, a regulation that many experts considered too weak to protect the environment and public health. Its now is in the hands of the national government and the legislature to guarantee society the protection of the precautionary principle and democratic participation in environmental matters" - Juan Felipe García, attorney with the Law and Territory Clinic of the Universidad Javeriana “The decision of the highest administrative court in the country is not an open invitation to carry out fracking in Colombia. The government must fully guarantee the right to participation and the voice of communities in decision-making about projects that may generate environmental impacts in their territories, as well as guarantee the safety and protection of environmental leaders who defend their territories". - Silvia Quintero, legal advisor to the Environmental and Public Health Legal Clinic of the Universidad de Los Andes “The lifting of the judicial moratorium on fracking leaves open the possibility of moving forward with such projects whose contracts were previously suspended. It’s necessary that fracking have a social license because several regions of the country have been considered as potential areas for its implementation." - Lizeth Gómez, attorney with Corporación Podion Contactos de prensa: Juan Pablo Sarmiento, [email protected], +573005514583 Yeny Rodríguez, AIDA, [email protected], +573107787601 Juan Felipe García, Clínica en Derecho y Territorio de la Universidad Javeriana, [email protected], +573125588889 Lizeth Gómez, PODION, [email protected], +573176430036

May 19 2022 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.