Blog
How we protect Andean ecosystems from mining's impacts
Few places in the world are so vulnerable to environmental degradation from mining than Colombia. The country ranks second in coal reserves in South America and is home to what could be one of the largest gold mines in the Americas. This means it is imperative to deal with the environmental problems linked to mining. Paradoxically, Colombia has a rich ecology. This ranges from forests to fragile environments such as páramos, or high-altitude ecosystems that capture water from fog and supply it to lowlands. Both have a rich biodiversity that would suffer devastating impacts from mining. But it’s not just the environment. The ethnic and rural communities that rely on these natural resources for their livelihoods are the most susceptible to mining. AIDA has worked to protect these Andean ecosystems, which are vital sources of water. Due to a shift in national policy from agriculture to mining as Colombia’s economic and industrial priority, the threats of mining are intensifying. In response, AIDA has used political and legal strategies to strengthen and enforce environmental legislation in the country. We have turned to comparative and international law to clarify the country’s legal requirements and establish precedents for the creation of public policies that protect fragile environments from large-scale mining. In this effort, AIDA helped the Inter-Church Commission for Justice and Peace, a Colombian human rights group, to file a lawsuit against the Mandé Norte project of Muriel Mining Corp. in the northeastern department of Chocó. With the resolution of this case (see above, Spanish only), Colombia's Constitutional Court set a crucial precedent. It ruled that indigenous and tribal communities have the right to freely access information about the project and to express their prior consent for the construction of the mine, all while under the protection of national and international laws. Specifically, the court ordered the Colombian government to stop all work on the Mandé Norte mine until the company carried out extensive studies on the potential environmental impacts and made a new and adequate consultation of the affected communities. The Ministry of Interior and the mining company asked the court to reverse its decision. AIDA and other organizations submitted requests (see our interventions, Spanish only) to keep the ruling intact. This finally happened on March 12, 2012 when the court confirmed its decision (see the confirmation of the sentence, Spanish only). To the east of the Mandé Norte project, another such project is threatening the environment and communities in the Santander department. AIDA is working to stop the construction of Angostura, an open-pit gold mine that Canada’s Greystar Resources Ltd. – now called Eco Oro Minerals Corp. – plans to build in the Santurbán páramos, high-altitude wetlands that supply drinking water to 2.2 million Colombians and help to mitigate the effects of climate change. During the environmental licensing process for the project, AIDA helped to demonstrate that Colombia’s legal obligations as well as international norms prohibit mining in the páramos. Based on this argument, Colombia’s Ministry of Environment, Housing and Territorial Development rejected (Spanish only) the environmental impact assessment denied the environmental license for Angostura in May 2011. But as the decision didn’t cancel the mining licenses, Eco Oro said it would seek to build an underground mine. In January 2013, the ministry declared Santurbán a Regional Natural Park, a move that can prevent the development of mining concessions in páramos areas. Through all of this, we found evidence of violations to social and environmental standards in the national and international funding for the Angostura mine by the International Finance Corporation (IFC), an entity of the World Bank Group. Given the alleged noncompliance with these standards, we teamed up with the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and MiningWatch Canada to submit a complaint to the Office of the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO), the independent complaints office of the IFC. We called for an audit of the project and a subsequent divestment. The CAO decided to audit the investment process. The outcome could set a precedent to ensure that the IFC does not finance mining in páramos, a key decision given that such initiatives are planned elsewhere in Colombia as well as in Ecuador and Peru. In addition to these efforts, AIDA has been actively involved in the debate (Spanish only) concerning a boundary demarcation of Colombia’s páramos as a way to protect these ecosystems. According to Colombian law, the geographical location and characteristics of páramo ecosystems must be mapped out to establish their legal perimeters. Once officially determined, the boundaries will provide the basis for conservation measures, in particular the prevention of activities that cause irreversible damage. Together with prestigious Colombian environmentalists and society as a whole, AIDA has taken action (Spanish only) to press the Ministry of Environment to endorse a demarcation based on scientific criteria by adopting a new atlas of the páramos drawn up by Colombian officials. At the same time, AIDA has worked with other environmental organizations to investigate La Colosa, a mining project that South Africa-based AngloGold Ashanti Ltd. plans to develop in the forest reserves and the large farmlands of Tolima, a central-western department of Colombia. In this case, we have sought a more active and informed participation of citizens and compliance with the highest environmental standards. AIDA also has joined forces with other organizations to file a suit with the goal of analyzing the constitutionality of Colombia’s National Mining Code. The Constitutional Court has set important precedents regarding the need to protect environmentally sensitive areas and the importance of the precautionary principle. It also has set a precedent for ensuring the independence of environmental authorities in regard to mining authorities when it comes to awarding environmental licenses for mining projects. In addition to Colombia, AIDA has been enlisted to help halt the construction of mines in Bolivia, Ecuador, Costa Rica, Mexico, Panama and elsewhere. To do this, AIDA has developed legal and scientific resources from our analysis of case studies and writing of reports. These resources can be useful for protecting the environment and the rural and indigenous communities that are the most affected by mining.
Read more
The bicycle: Can it be our principle mode of transport?
By Astrid Puentes Riaño, co-director, AIDA, @astridpuentes Have you ever thought that bicycles could be our main mode of transport, or is it already for you? I tell people that I cycle, and that I live in Mexico City! I love riding on two wheels for many reasons: it’s environmentally friendly, and it’s easy, fast, cheap and fun. Many times I’ve ridden past cars idling in traffic, leaving them behind as I arrive at my destination in less time than if I’d taken a car or bus. Although it seems incredible, I hardly ever take a car. This might seem crazy given that we are in the modern era and I live in Mexico City, but its doable. I use Ecobici, a public rental service for bicycles. It’s not perfect, but it works well enough. I’m not saying that bicycles should be the only option for everyone. It works for me because most of the destinations I ride to are within a reasonable distance. Of course, when I need to go somewhere with my two year old, I resort to other means of transport such as our family car. As we all know, the increasing use of bicycles and other zero-emission modes of transport help to combat climate change in our cities. Sustainable transport alone will not provide the panacea for solving global warming, but it does go a long way in reducing its impact. The case of The Netherlands Riding a bike, especially in Latin America, can sometimes be more of a challenge than an adventure. I found a BBC article that explains why some countries like The Netherlands use bicycles on a grand scale. The reasons why are surprisingly simple. The country has: Excellent bike path infrastructure, with enough space for everyone to cycle, including children. A bicycle-friendly culture: Motorists respect cyclists because in most cases they either know someone who is a cyclist or they cycle themselves. Strict traffic rules for everyone: Motorists and cyclists alike face hefty fines if they park poorly on the street, travel in the wrong direction or do not follow traffic light rules. Tolerant neighbors allow cyclists to park their bicycles outside their houses, which is clearly a safe place to leave them! How can this be achieved? An interesting aspect in the case of The Netherlands is that civil society pressure and the oil crisis were decisive factors that influenced a considerable change in the country’s transport system. Like most countries in the 1950s and 1960s, the number of road vehicles in The Netherlands grew significantly and, with it, a rise in traffic-related accidents. The number of people killed in 1971 as a result of traffic accidents was 3,000, 450 of whom were children, according to the BBC. The sharp increase in deaths prompted a social movement called “Stop the Child Murder,” which called on the government to improve road safety for cyclists. These incidents, together with the oil crisis of the 1970s, led to changes in government policy, the construction of new bike infrastructure, improved safety standards and, above all, the framework for The Netherlands to take a new bicycle route of its own. Helmet or no helmet… Curiously, it is not mandatory to wear a helmet when bicycling in The Netherlands, as is also the case in much of Europe. Wearing a helmet is not considered necessary given the very low number of accidents and the high level of road safety. The obligation to wear a helmet is seen by many as an attack on the culture that promotes bicycles as a mode of transport. In Spain, there have been protests against government efforts to impose rules enforcing helmet use. In contrast: Cyclists of all ages must wear helmets in Australia and Dubai. It is mandatory to wear a helmet in some Canadian provinces, not others. United States federal law does not require cyclists to wear helmets, but cities like Dallas require helmets for cyclists of all ages, while only those under the ages of 16 and 18 in California and Washington D.C., respectively, are required to do so. Certainly any government attempt to implement policies on helmet use in Latin American cities would be difficult. On the one hand, it is a very real danger to cycle on busy cities, especially if drivers are not accustomed to sharing the roads with cyclists. On the other hand, mandatory helmet requirements could act as a disincentive to people in choosing whether to take up riding bicycles. Something to consider is that helmets alone do not prevent all accidents. A great majority of accidents -- children falling off their bicycles or collisions on the congested streets of Bogota and in other Latin American cities -- can be avoided if appropriate security measures are put in place. I myself had an accident at the age of three when my uncle took me for a ride on his Super Monareta (a Colombian brand of bikes) near my grandmother’s house. My left foot got stuck in the spokes of the rear wheel, badly injuring my inner foot and resulting in the destruction of my best pair of shoes. Fortunately, I came away with only a scar. But it could have been much worse. Progress in Latin America It’s pretty much impossible to compare our countries with The Netherlands. But I think the progress made and lessons learned there hold the key to bicycle reform, and are well worth noting. The good news is that various Latin American capitals have taken action to encourage the use of bicycles. Bike paths are expanding: Bogota has 297 km, Santiago is planning to build an additional 400 km in the inner city, Mexico City reached 42 km in 2012 and Buenos Aires has about 90 km. In reality there is still a great deal to be done and, fortunately, citizens are becoming more involved in the issue, demanding better infrastructure, improved security and air quality to ride something that is more than just a child’s toy. Hopefully progress will continue and we’ll finally see positive changes toward the adoption of fun, environmentally friendly and cheap forms of transport like cycling. What do you think? Do you dare ride a bike?
Read more
"No thank you" says the Green Climate Fund Board to transparency and civil society input
By Andrea Rodríguez, legal advisor, AIDA,@arodriguezosuna Once again civil society organizations expressed disappointment at the lack of transparency and civil society engagement at the latest meeting of the board of the Green Climate Fund (GCF), an operating entity of the United Nations Convention Framework for Climate Change (UNFCCC). The 24-member board met June 25-28 in Songdo, South Korea to further advance a process of putting the GCF into operation. The GCF will operate as a mechanism for transferring funds from the developed to developing world in order to help developing countries finance adaptation and mitigation practices to combat climate change. Civil society organizations have been constantly asking the GCF board for better opportunities for civil society to effectively be involved in the GCF decision-making process. Organizations have sent letters to board members, advisors and the GCF Interim Secretariat. But these many attempts to draw attention and consideration to civil society’s concerns have come to no avail. The board has constantly closed the doors to civil society’s active and effective participation. At board meetings, civil society may only have two active observers in the meeting room: one representing the north and the other the south. The other accredited observers have to sit in an overflow room to watch the meeting. The two active observers may only engage in the meeting if invited by the co-chairs of the board. Only one intervention can be made per each agenda item of the meeting and for no more than three minutes each time. On the last day of the Songdo meeting, the co-chairs disallowed any interventions from civil society, claiming there was not enough time. Ironically, the most important decisions were made on the last day. Given these limitations imposed by the co-chairs, the two active observers in the meeting room approached several board members to share key points on different papers from the perspective of civil society. The co-chairs, however, penalized this action and forbade the active observers from talking to board members. Despite the frustration of the being undermined and excluded, civil society was hoping to win at least one battle at the meeting: getting the board to decide in favor of live webcasting. Live webcasting shows a commitment to accountability and transparency. It provides opportunities for people without the resources to travel to board meetings to get involved in the meeting while also limiting the CO2 emissions generated by each board meeting through a reduction in the number of international flights taken for attendance. Webcasting is widely used by climate-related funds and is even used by the UNFCCC, the international environmental treaty of which the GCF is part. In Songdo, the GCF board decided against live webcasting on the argument that it would be too expensive at US$20,000 to US$30,000 per meeting. The board’s reference prices, however, are far more than the market average of US$1200 per day. According to the Adaptation Fund (AF) Secretariat and its webcast provider, live-streaming of AF board meetings costs about $1,000-$1,250 per day of broadcast, depending on site specific issues. Instead of live webcasting, the GCF board agreed to make webcasts of the meeting accessible three weeks after the event upon registration. Civil society organizations believe that this three-week delay prohibits organizations from advocating on the issues related to the discussions and decisions at the meeting. The Green Climate Fund has decided to have a strategic focus on climate mitigation and adaptation and seek to maximize sustainable development. Nevertheless, it is difficult to understand how the fund would ever be able to maximize “sustainable development” if its decisions are not made with the support of effective stakeholder participation and engagement throughout the whole process.
Read more
There is a blot in the middle of the ocean…
By Florencia Ortúzar, legal advisor, AIDA The first time I heard about the mysterious “rubbish island” I was shocked. How could a huge floating mass as big as a country go unnoticed in the ocean without being on everyone’s lips? Incredibly, many people haven’t even heard of this Pacific Trash Vortex that grows larger every day, making it the world’s largest rubbish dump. A soup of what? The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, as it’s officially known, is one of the five floating rubbish dumps polluting our world’s oceans. It was the first to be discovered and is the biggest. It’s located in the middle of the Pacific Ocean between the U.S. states of Hawaii and California, about 1,000 kilometers off the coast of Hawaii. The size of the rubbish heap is difficult to determine. Estimates range from about 15,000 square kilometers (equivalent to the surface area of Antarctica or 8.1% of the Pacific Ocean) to 700,000 square kilometers (almost the surface area of Chile). Let me explain a little more about this sad and unusual phenomenon. The island of rubbish is not a solid island as such, nor a floating sheet of trash. Rather, it’s a soup of plastic particles floating in a gyre. Ocean currents collect thousands of tons of floating garbage and round them up in a giant vortex. The slowly rotating mass prevents the rubbish from dispersing. This soup has everything: abandoned fishing nets, plastic bottles, caps, toothbrushes, shoes and much more. But more than anything, the vortex consists of small particles of plastic created when the waves and sun break down larger pieces. This gigantic mass remains below the surface of the water in a column estimated to extend 30 meters deep. Paradoxically, despite its huge size, the rubbish dump is not easy to visualize as a whole and has not been captured in satellite images because of its location under the water. Worse, it is located in international waters, so no nation is responsible for the waste. After concerned scientists and environmentalists, the only people left to help clean up the mess are passengers on special cruise ships who visit the vortex to help remove some of the rubbish. In all, it’s a gigantic mess going unnoticed, growing slowly but surely in a no man’s land devoid of a god or the rule of law. A chance discovery In 1988, experts from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicted the existence of the garbage patch in the North Pacific Ocean by analyzing local marine currents. But it wasn’t until a decade later when oceanographer Charles Moore officially discovered the trash heap, which was dubbed the "Eastern Garbage Patch." In July 1997, Captain Moore was sailing through the North Pacific Gyre when he came across miles and miles of synthetic pieces of debris, and an immense mass of floating garbage. It took the American one week to cross the accumulation of waste. In 1994, Moore established the foundation Algalita Marine Research to focus on the protection and regeneration of kelp forests and wetlands along the coast of California. But after his floating garbage island discovery, Moore dramatically changed the course of his foundation and dedicated it to raising awareness and promoting education about the garbage patch. (See Moore’s TED talk). Expeditions to the forgotten island Since its discovery, there have been various scientific expeditions to the Great Pacific Garbage Patch and other floating garbage islands like it. Unfortunately, these trips have not managed to generate a significant amount of public awareness or impact outside environmental circles. Nobody seems to be willing to take responsibility or action. The most recent expedition in May was organized by the Society of French Explorers (in French) on a schooner called L’Elan, assisted by Captain Moore on board. The results of the mission have not yet been published. Hopefully now with the ability of social networks to disseminate information widely, the issue will generate more interest and make people aware of the huge amount of plastic we consume. What can we do? As mentioned above, the garbage island mainly consists of billions of plastic pieces too small to be seen. This makes it difficult for the debris to be removed from the ocean. You would have to put a very fine net across the surface of the water, which would disturb the ecosystem and essential marine fauna such as plankton, a key food source for ocean animals. What is more, accessing the polluted area would require a considerable amount of resources including manpower and expensive materials to undertake the difficult work out in the open seas. The task becomes even more unlikely where you consider that the garbage island is located in international waters where no country is sovereign (the tragedy of the commons). For now and until we come up with new technology that lets us travel back in time to prevent this disaster, the best and most sensible thing to do is to stop producing so much garbage, and especially to limit our consumption of disposable plastic. It is also important to help raise awareness of the problem so more people understand the effects of their consumerism, change their lifestyles and educate future generations who will be looking after the planet. The island of trash consists of materials that at one time helped revolutionize the world. Today we are surrounded by plastic: we eat and drink from it. We use it every day. It is present in nearly all of our activities. Plastic is almost a miracle product. Cheap, effective and virtually indestructible, it doesn’t break. It just disintegrates into smaller parts. The considerable durability of plastic means that almost all the plastic molecules ever created still remain somewhere on the planet. Now at least we have a better idea on where they end up: on rubbish island.
Read more
Peru and its socio-environmental conflicts
By María José Veramendi Villa, legal advisor, AIDA, @MaJoVeramendi “In Peru, the general state of social conflict is strongly influenced by the dynamics of economic growth that the country has experienced in recent years; but this growth has not necessarily brought measures that generate a perception of social welfare or political representation for certain sectors of society. ” (Ombudsman’s report No. 156: Violence in social conflict, March 2012) Peru is rich in minerals and other natural resources. Evidence of this is that as of June 2012, 20.3% of the national territory was licensed for mining activities, according to a report by the Cooperación NGO based on data from the government’s Geological Mining and Metallurgical Institute (INGEMMET). In June 2013, the Ombudsman of Peru released its Monthly Report on Social Conflict No. 112 (in Spanish). The report lists 223 registered social conflicts: 170 of which are active (76.2%) and 53 latent (23.8%). While there was a decline in the number of conflicts from the previous month, the most significant and prevalent type of conflict was socio-environmental, of which there were 145 cases in June. Of those cases, 105 were in mining, 18 in hydrocarbons, eight in energy activities and four in forestry projects. The Ombudsman’s office defines social conflict as “a complex process in which different sectors of society, the state and the private sector have conflicting objectives, interests, values or necessities, and that these contractions can lead to violence.” Causes In the 2007 report Socio-environmental Conflicts from Extractive Activities in Peru (in Spanish), the Ombudsman´s office identified at least five causes of these conflicts: People’s justified fear that extractive activities like mining can potentially cause contamination; Communities feel vulnerable living in areas where these activities are being developed; People lack trust in the government’s ability to prevent the contamination and degradation of the environment where they live; Concerns that weak regulations and controls on extractive activities can cause contamination resulting in collateral damages to third parties, imposing higher costs on activities like agriculture, whose existence and development can be jeopardized by the decline in quality or quantity of available water; and The negative impacts of extractive activities. These causes are as pertinent today as they were in 2007. But the Peruvian authorities still appear to ignore the situation, and, in response, the justified fear of the population and the mistrust in the state worsen. A recent example: The implementation of prior consultation Convention No. 169 (in Spanish) of the International Labour Organization (ILO) came into force in Peru on February 2, 1995. Since then the country has been obligated to comply with its provisions, which enforce, among others, the right of indigenous and tribal peoples to be consulted onissues that affect them. The convention also states that these people, in a prior, free and informed manner, can participate in the processes to develop and formulate policies that affect them. According to the jurisprudence of the Peruvian Constitutional Court, the convention has constitutional status. Despite this, its implementation was non-existent to the point of being a systematically denied right in the country until August 23, 2011. That’s when the Peruvian Congress approved legislation on the right to prior consultation for indigenous and tribal peoples. The law was promulgated and published on the September 6, 2011, and it has been in effect since December of that year. The Rules of Procedure to apply the Law were issued on April 3, 2012 and put into force a day later. But these legal instruments, which could be seen as an act of good faith to implement norms that already exist in our legal system, have been heavily criticized for technical failures and for reducing the standards of protection achieved by indigenous people through their many years of struggle. These protections were cemented in the ILO Convention No. 169 of 1989, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007) and in the jurisprudence of the international bodies set up to protect human rights, especially the Inter-American Court of Human Rights I want to highlight two facts on these shortcomings: First, the Rules of Procedure of the Consultation Law only applies to acts conducted after its approval. This means that during the 16 years between the approval of Convention No. 169 and the Consultation Law and its Rules of Procedure, the former was merely a decorative instrument. The second little-known fact is that the Judgment 00025-2009-PI/TC (in Spanish) of the Constitutional Court states specifically: “The enforceability of the right to consultation is linked to the implementation of the ILO Convention 169 in our legal system." Government officials (in Spanish) have signaled that the Law of Prior Consultation is not binding. Even the Peruvian president said the law “should be viewed as an instrument allowing investment, and to not to be seen as an obstacle.” We remember that in the case of The Kichwa Peoples of Sarayaku Vs. Ecuador, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruled that proper consultation is a general principle of international law. It’s time to be alert. The proper implementation of the right to consultation and prior, free and informed consent is the key to developing effective protection of indigenous rights. In a country where socio-environmental conflict is the norm – along with the causes mentioned above, it is essential to build trust and confidence among the population and give assurances that their rights will be safeguarded. If these points are not put into action, it would be no surprise to see a surge of conflicts in future.
Read moreThe city, our ecosystem
By Haydée Rodríguez, legal advisor, AIDA We are witnessing the biggest wave of urbanization in history. More than half of the world’s population lives in cities. The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) estimates that five billion people will live in urban zones by 2030 (State of the World Population: 2007).This growth could bring opportunities to improve our lives and fight for environmental sustainability, or it could create more poverty and accelerate the destruction of natural resources. When we talk about the environment it’s easy to imagine a lush greenlandscape or a sunny beach, birds singing and perhaps an animal running free in the forest. It is less likely to visualize a cityscape of asphalt, traffic and honking horns. But it is true that the urban environment also is an ecosystem. Urban ecology: The natural order of cities Urban ecology is a relatively new scientific discipline that seeks to understand how ecological processes function inside urban areas. Unlike other branches of ecology, it requires the collaboration of the social sciences and economics to understand the dominant species of this environment: the human being. In the city, just like in other ecosystems, every aspect contributes toward its definition. The characteristics of urban habitats include traffic, air pollution, population density, movement patterns, the real estate market, infrastructure, transport and natural elements like the availability of clean water, topography and geographic location. Everything surrounding our everyday life – the streets, pavements, parks, buildings, etc. – have been created by humans. The documentary Urbanized analyzes the design challenges in cities, the interaction between different elements and how the environment influences the population. Watch Urbanized trailer. Source: YouTube Beyond chaos: Building sustainable cities Initiatives to promote sustainable cities are on the rise. In the United States, where approximately 250 million people live in urban areas, local governments have created a project called Star Communities - Sustainability Tools for Assessing and Rating Communities (STAR). Through the initiative, each municipality can evaluate the sustainability of their cities in areas ranging from infrastructure to equity and empowerment. Cities can volunteer to join the project by using the methodology for measuring sustainability developed by a multidisciplinary group. To be considered sustainable, STAR requires cities to: 1) Think and take action as a collective system; 2) Be resilient, which is defined as the city’s ability to adapt, recover and evolve in a changing environment; 3) Promote innovation and creativity; 4) Measure the progress of the health and welfare of the people, the environment and the economy; 5) Use resources in a responsible and sustainable way; 6) Collaborate between cities and inpiduals; 7) Promote equity and persity; 8) Inspire leadership; and 9) Seek continual improvement. There is no stopping the progress of growing cities. In Costa Rica, for example, there are ongoing projects like Enamórate de tu ciudad (Fall in love with your city), which aims to improve the quality of life of residents in San José, the capital. Strategies have been put in place to improve safety, promote forms of clean public transport such as bicycles, and hold activities that bring the community together to enjoy the urban environment. City lights shine increasingly brighter across the world. Now is the time to think about what we want our cities to be like. Our urban ecosystem can be an important opportunity for social mobilization (a social process organized and based on dialog to improve our quality of life), education and the empowerment of the population. It can also help us reduce our impact on natural areas and on biopersity. We should seize this positive challenge and dare to see our cities with new eyes.
Read more
An evaluation of the OAS General Assembly and its relationship to the environment
By Astrid Puentes Riaño, co-executive director, AIDA, @astridpuentes The first week of June every year, the General Assembly of the Organization of American States (OAS) – made up of the foreign affairs ministers of its 34 member states – meets to discuss and address the hemisphere’s priority issues. For 2013, the central theme was: “For a comprehensive policy against the world drug problem in the Americas.” The city of Antigua, Guatemala hosted the June 4-6 event. In addition to the central theme, relevant administrative issues were addressed such as the election of commissioners to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) and the approval of two conventions against discrimination and in favor of tolerance. This year, as in 2012, I had the honor of attending the assembly as a civil society observer. My objectives this year were: 1) to monitor the process of “strengthening” the Inter-American System of Human Rights (IASHR) which ended at the extraordinary assembly last March, and 2) to participate in the process of including an environmental focus in the debate on drug policy by contributing AIDA’s experience in monitoring the programs to eradicate coca and opium poppies in Colombia (1999-2007). These are my conclusions on the event from four different angles: What turned out well J The Assembly Declaration on the need to evaluate the so far failed drug policy: The states recognized the policy’s negative impacts on both the environment and human rights as well as the importance of taking them into consideration in future solution initiatives. The "Inter-American Convention against Racism, Racial Discrimination, and Related Forms of Intolerance" and "Inter-American Convention against All Forms of Discrimination and Intolerance" were adopted and opened for signature. We hope both conventions are ratified, upheld and implemented by all of the states in order to eradicate actions that threaten the dignity and life of any person. The culmination of the process of “strengthening” the IASHR that started in 2011: As regards this issue, I will limit my comments to recalling that far from strengthening the system, the proposals from certain states threatened to weaken it (please see my previous post). In March, important reforms to the IACHR were agreed on and will be applied beginning in August. Although those changes were not in force, certain states sought additional ones. Given that a state of constant reforms is destined for failure, it was positive that for the moment the states did not agree to make new revisions to the IACHR or to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Another positive element was the frank and open dialogue (though at times difficult) held by the states, IACHR, the Inter-American Court, civil society and other system users. There were many issues that remained outstanding, but the important thing is to strengthen dialogue in which the users of the IASHR and interested parties can participate effectively, and in which the real protection of human rights is the only guide. With regard to the election of the IACHR commissioners, the six candidates presented their proposals on May 1 in a forum held by the Permanent Council. Despite the inappropriateness of the chosen date – the hemisphere (excepting the northern part) was celebrating International Workers’ Day (also known as May Day), we listened to the candidates (all men this time) and learned about their perspectives regarding the IACHR. This should be a systematic practice in all OAS elections. What I did not like The lack of clarity and interruptions in spaces assigned to civil society: I recognize that progress has been made toward the greater and more significant participation of this sector in the OAS even though the mechanisms are still far from being perfect. Two examples in the assembly in Antigua, which we hope do not recur in the future, illustrate this: 1. During the civil society dialogue with Mr. José Miguel Insulza, secretary-general of the OAS, one state representative took the floor. Regardless of the subject of this intervention, this goes against the definition of the space, which is open only to the OAS secretary and civil society delegates. This is a point that requires immediate improvement. 2. In the dialogue between civil society and the foreign secretaries, the situation became complex. It is customary that, due to the short amount of time available for interventions (a total of 20 minutes this time), the organizations decide beforehand the issues and speakers. On this occasion, a group of organizations insisted on taking the floor even though their issue had not been chosen. Despite this, one additional person was given the floor without previous coordination or agreement. Although this was an attempt to air the perspectives of a diverse group, as is civil society, it opened the possibility of delegitimizing the efforts of hundreds of organizations to organize ourselves, if you’ll pardon the repetition. In addition, this incident brings with it the risk that organizations or individuals whose issues have not been selected by the rest but who are close to the foreign ministries may participate more than others. What was left pending… Obtaining greater participation from other sectors of civil society such as indigenous peoples, campesinos and Afro-Descendants. Nevertheless, in contrast to the past, this time there was a greater presence of the latter group, which represents a positive step. Providing continuity to the urgency of getting the states to renew and demonstrate their will to comply with IASHR decisions. This issue, I feel, is the white elephant in the room. Although that is a part of the recommendations of the Working Group that the states themselves developed in order to “strengthen” the System, none of them have mentioned the matter again and it is not included in the resolution that put an end to the process even though it is fundamental for truly strengthening the System. This assembly unfortunately demonstrated yet again the lack of transparency in the selection of the commissioners. Despite the redeemable elements of the forum mentioned above, each country’s participatory and transparent selection processes were absent. During the assembly, the traditional mechanism was once again applied in which each state nominates and campaigns for its own candidate. This lends itself to the diplomatic negotiation of votes that in the end are secret, thereby reducing the accountability to which we all have a right to with regard to those who govern us. The best part ☼ Without a doubt, the venue: Antigua. The people are incredibly friendly. It is a very pretty city that with great reason was declared a World Heritage Site by UNESCO. It is full of gorgeous little corners, colonial architecture and houses with balconies and gardens. Imposing mountains surround it – among them, Volcán de Agua [Water Volcano], at only 3½ kilometers from the city. I was able to enjoy a perfect and inspirational view on the mornings when I ran very early to clear my mind and stay abreast of the important, though a bit slow for my taste, discussions. The opportunity to share closely with respected individuals such as María José, my colleague at AIDA, and colleagues from organizations from throughout the region with whom it was a pleasure to meet again. The foregoing is my view of the recent OAS General Assembly. I would enjoy hearing your comments in agreement or disagreement with what I have said.
Read more
What’s the latest on the reform of the Inter-American System of Human Rights?
By Astrid Puentes Riaño, co-director, AIDA,@astridpuentes In June, I wrote about how some OAS member states had begun a process to introduce tough reforms on the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) and the Inter-American Human Rights System that would weaken their ability to operate and protect our human rights. I want to bring you up to date on how the discussions are faring. More importantly, though, I want to ask you to get involved by signing thepetitionto ask the member states to strengthen –not weaken– the Inter-American System. More than 3,000 people have already signed! You can sign too! Watch our video message to the Permanent Council of the OAS (Spanish only) The outlook last June was pretty thorny. Seldom has an OAS General Assembly been as tense as the last two, particularly the most recent one when the Inter-American System came under fierce attack and several member states even sought to re-establish it. The Assembly ended with a call to reform the statute at an Extraordinary Assembly, something that’s never happened in the history of the IACHR. The good news is that the member states appear to have somewhat cooled their clamoring. There are more signs of a willingness to talk. The Representative of Brazil made reference to this change during the Permanent Council’s extraordinary session with civil society representatives, saying the confidence and opportunities for negotiations have improved. He said this process should lead to an outcome in which the underlying question of human rights takes precedence over procedural matters. Watch our video message to the Permanent Council of the OAS (Spanish only) It’s an honor that the representative quoted us. Now we have to see if this good message gets translated into action by, for example, addressing the IACHR’s requests on Brazil including those regarding the contentious Belo Monte dam. The Brazilian government must respond and give its perspective on the case. The not so good news is that the process is not yet complete. We’re still waiting for a definition on what the reforms will be and how they will be implemented. For example, part of the reform package proposed by some states is that if the Inter-American Court rejects a request for precautionary measures then the IACHR has to do so too. That, as we have said, fails to recognize the natural differences of the Court and the IACHR and puts them at risk. The IACHR has committed to producing various reports, which will eat up a lot of its resources and thus could affect its duty to protect, its duty to proceed with cases of human rights violations affecting millions of people in the hemisphere. It is understood that neither the Inter-American System nor any of those involved are perfect. There is still a lot to improve. But it is essential that this process concludes with recommendations to make the System more effective. That means that AIDA and our colleagues in the hemisphere will continue to lobby the member states, the OAS and the IACHR itself. We will continue to offer our opinions. We will continue to share our experiences as users of the System. We will continue to fight to prevent any weakening of the System. That is why we ask you to sign TODAY and help us defend the IASHR and, in the process, our human rights. If you as an inpidual or community member believe that you could use one of the IACHR’s decisions in cases involving dams, mining projects, tourism developments, free speech, the protection of women or anything else, then speak out and sign up now! If not you, if not us, then who? Full video of the session In this recording you can hear the Representative of Brazil cite AIDA (last 5 minutes)
Read more
Who can protect us if the Inter-American System of Human Rights is weakened?
By Astrid Puentes, co-director of AIDA, @astridpuentes I’m writing from Cochabamba, where I’m attending the 42nd General Assembly of the Organization of American States (OAS). This is the first time I have come to Bolivia and to a General Assembly. I am here to support our efforts to truly “strengthen the Inter-American System” and to stand against proposals from OAS member states that could limit the independence and effectiveness of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). Our goal is to preserve the autonomy and role of the IACHR, and, thus, to guarantee human rights in the region: To protect our rights, yours and mine. Here’s a summary of what is a complex story. A number of member states launched an effort to strengthen the Inter-American System of the Protection of Human Rights in 2011, two years after the IACHR and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights modified their rules of procedure. This effort is a direct response from several member states after the IACHR brought up concerns about human rights in their countries. A working group was then created last year to evaluate how the Inter-American System of Human Rights could be “strengthened.” The group produced a report that the Commission has responded to and that NGOs like ours will also comment on. A few days ago, the Secretary General of the OAS, José Miguel Insulza, published a report on the subject. Personally, I think it is inadequate because several of his recommendations will actually weaken, and not strengthen, the system. For example, he says there is “a loophole in the statute of the commission on the figure of the precautionary measures that could be filled by... the General Assembly of the OAS.” It is worth mentioning that it is the IACHR that determines its own rules, a way to ensure its independence. Insulza’s report left out issues he’d been asked to address, such as options for improving the financing for the Inter-American System. Based on his recommendations, the result would be contrary to the same objective that Insulza and member states have set as their main goal. Fortunately, Insulza in his declarations during the General Assembly dismissed some of the recommendations that could have drained the strength of the Inter-American Human Rights System. The important points of the “strengthening” process that will be discussed at the General Assembly in Cochabamba – and no doubt afterwards – include: Financing the Inter-American Human Rights System. This is essential, as you can’t ask the IACHR to operate efficiently on a meager budget. “Unify in a constructive manner” what the member states and the IACHR understand as the precautionary measures. This is an issue presented by some member states and brought up by Secretary Insulza. It was frankly a surprise that this point came from the very report of the secretary for two reasons: a) abiding by what the system dictates is part of what member states already agreed to in creating the System, and b) because the Inter-American Court has been very clear in determining that the measures are obligatory. What can we expect of member states? I mean, who likes to get their dirty laundry published in the media? This is not to say that they are acting irrationally. Whether the IACHR should have a greater role in promoting human rights than protecting them. That is to say, whether it should provide more advice to the member states on how to respect human rights, or rather review complaints of human rights violations that come its way. Pulling Ears To understand this process it is important to know the motivations that have prompted member states to push for these changes. Coincidentally, states like Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuelawant “to strengthen” the system precisely when the IACHR has handed down important decisions against them, namely: 1. It has called on Brazil to suspend construction of the Belo Monte dam in Brazil for violating indigenous rights and threatening the environment, 2. The Report on Democracy and Human Rights in Venezuela exposed serious violations, 3. The severe human rights violations in Colombia have been included a number of times in Chapter IV of the commission’s annual report, 4. Ecuador has been questioned multiple times by the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, among other examples. A Conflict of Interests If we put this differently and speak instead of member states but of a director whose organization is about to hire a close relative, there would be no doubt that this would be declared incompatible because of a conflict of interests. Or, put even more plainly, if a referee was assigned to the final of the World Cup of Soccer and he had the same nationality as one of the teams, then obviously there would be protests from the other team. These impediments don’t exist in the OAS. The same member states against whom the complaints are made by the IACHR can modify its functions through the General Assembly. It is exactly for this reason that restraint is required even when they don’t agree with the System’s decisions. It is vital that the states respect the independence of the Inter-American System in discourse and practice. They must reiterate their compromise with the agreements dating back more than 60 years and support the bodies that were created for the very purpose of guaranteeing justice in cases of human rights violations. (This text in Spanish)
Read morePrior consultation: An opportunity for life, respect and diversity
By Héctor Herrera, legal advisor, AIDA, @RJAColombia Colombia’s ethnic groups have decrees and laws that protect their cultural persity, that defend the individual and collective livelihood of these native and traditional peoples and communities. Article 6 of Convention No. 169 of the International Labour Organization (ILO) stipulates that indigenous peoples have the right to prior consultation. That means that they should participate in defining the measures that could have a direct impact on them, whether legislative (such as laws or decrees) or administrative (environmental permits for highways, dams, mines, oil wells, and the like). The negotiations should be carried out in good faith and with the goal of reaching agreements on all sides. This has become very important in Colombia, a multiethnic, multicultural, and diverse country. According to the Luis Ángel Arango Library, 65 indigenous languages in 12 language families are spoken in Colombia, of which 34 have less than one thousand speakers. Traditional Afro groups speak two different Creole languages. Yet all of these languages are in danger. Colombia also is extremely diverse in biological species globally, ranking first in birds, second in amphibians and butterflies, third in reptiles, and fourth in mammals, according to the Humboldt Institute. Colombian newspaper El Espectador reported 2011 data showing that 10% of all biodiversity is found on 1% of the planet’s surface. In Columbia, 29.8% of this is collective indigenous territory and 5% is collective traditional Afro territory. Understanding this, prior consultation emerges as an opportunity to protect the cultural and ethnic persity of Colombia and defend the inpidual and collective livelihood of the many native and traditional peoples and communities. It is, too, an opportunity to protect the ecosystems that these ethnic groups inhabit as well as to protect life in all its forms. This does not mean forcing anybody to adopt a conservation, extractive, or development model. It simply means making sure that an effective space is provided for clear, honest, and intercultural dialogue with ethnic groups on measures that could affect them, whether legislative or administrative measures or national laws or extractive mining projects. This is completely in line with the stipulations of Article 6 of Convention No. 169 of the ILO . This right has also been recognized in numerous national and international legal documents. On the international level, we have the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted in 2007 (PDF file). In Colombia, we have the Political Constitution, which protects the rights of ethnic groups to their collective territory and the rights of all of society to a healthy environment. With the backing of international legal documents and the Political Constitution, the Constitutional Court of Colombia upheld the right to prior consultation for the “Embera indigenous people” in relation to the construction of the Urrá dam in 1998 and for Amazon indigenous peoples on the fumigation of illegal crops in 2003. In other cases, the High Court declared unconstitutional the National Development Plan of 2006-2010, the forestry law of 2006 and the mining code reform of 2010 because the proponents had not consulted with ethnic groups. There are yet more cases outside Colombia, such as Bolivia with the Multinational Constitution of 2009 and Ecuador with the Intercultural and Multinational Constitution of 1998, both of which recognize the right to prior consultation. So too Peru, where a law on this right was just passed this year. Culture, language and a view of the world – all of these can live on through time if we respect them and guarantee people’s rights, including the right to prior consultation. The protection of this right could also contribute to the protection of important ecosystems and of biological persity, both of which are vital issues as we face unprecedented climate change and environmental degradation.
Read more