Blog

March 26 2012

Environmental law and women

By Natalia Jiménez, legal advisor, AIDA The role of environmental law is weak on gender. This can be seen in Latin America where there is constant approval of economic and development plans affecting the female view of the world, and that could lead to new ways of violating our rights. Just like with ethnic communities, there are social groups with unique values of environmental protection, and to protect these ways of thinking is to protect the environment. Women play a decisive role in the protection of the environment in a distinct and particular way. While not the same for all and while many women may not feel the need for this recognition, the way of understanding nature or creation on the one side and environmental damage on the other is different between men and women. This is a reason why we promote a variety of proposals for environmental management. There are a lot of good books on this in Spanish. Here are three: a) “Abrazar la vida. Mujer, ecología y desarrollo,” by Vandana Shiva, published in Uruguay, b) “Desarrollo y feminización de la pobreza” and “Ecofeminismo: hacia una redefinición filosófico-política de ‘Naturaleza’ y ‘Ser humano,’” both by Alicia Puleo and published in Spain. >The experience of Ecuador in protecting the moor ecosystems> is >a beautiful and inspiring example of a female environmental fight in Latin America. It also is proof of what has been said, such as that >women are the best defenders in negotiations on climate change> and that >their ideas are even more effective and sustainable when it comes to fighting hunger and poverty>. But while ethnic groups have gained a good degree of legal defense through prior consent, numerous social groups are still waiting for creative lawyers with the capacity to defend their visions in the courts. Prior consent allows ethnic groups to make decisions about plans or legislative initiatives that affect their territories in order to protect their cultural, social, and economic integrity. It is a right that has been >recognized> in countries like Colombia. In Latin America, the social aspect that comes up most in big legal battles for environmental protection is the right of ethnic groups to prior consent over a development project that could damage their existence and culture. But little to nothing has been said in the courts on the illegality and social inconvenience of such a project violating women’s rights and their vision of the world. We need legal tools as jurisprudential precedents to make it possible to litigate and determine, for example, that a development plan is or could represent discriminatory action against women. I am not talking about multiplying the number of existing mechanisms for participation in decision-making or the number of women involved or making decisions. We need laws that set precedents to protect the environment based on the female view of the world. We need more creative legal tools that, like prior consent, can incorporate the environmental values of women into local and global environmental practices in a real and efficient way.

March 21 2012

Coral reefs in Latin America: A natural spectacle at risk

Gladys Martínez de Lemos, legal advisor, AIDA Twenty five percent of all marine species have lived at some stage in coral reefs. In Costa Rica, these reefs are under threat from deforestation and other human activities. Coral reefs help maintain balance in the marine environment. They are home to many marine species for human consumption, they protect coasts from erosion and hurricanes, and they offer coastal communities a source of income from diving tourism. But a lack of clear policies and regulations is threatening their survival. These natural wonders help balance the ecosystem by providing a source of food to superior organisms, thus forming vital food webs. Their environmental value is so significant that economists have estimated that a hectare of reef is worth over one million dollars per year. Even though coral reefs cover about a tenth of the ocean floor, current estimates suggest that 25% of all marine species have lived in coral reefs at some stage of their life cycle. Despite this, coral reefs are under threat in Costa Rica and elsewhere from ocean acidification, destructive fishing practices, unsustainable coastal development, and pollution, among other factors. According to the Costa Rica's 15th State of the Nation Report, the loss of 75% of live corals in the Cahuita Reef is mostly due to sedimentation caused by basin deforestation and other human actions. Governmental inaction It's evident that coral reefs are endangered. There are no clear and widespread policies and regulations to deal with this issue; there are no mechanisms for the control, monitoring or even protection to preserve coral reefs. Even current international obligations on coral reef protection are overlooked. This can no longer be. Marine biodiversity and ecosystems must be preserved for future generations to see the beauty and diversity of coral reefs. We all have a son, nephew or cousin who we want to have the opportunity to enjoy the richness of the coral reefs, or the chance to savor fish and their valuable protein. Most Latin American countries and their decision makers have not yet created special laws to protect the coral reefs. They face a huge challenge -- and responsibility -- to protect the reefs.

March 07 2012

Protection of Sinaloa’s mangrove swamps put off

By Sandra Moguel, legal advisor, AIDA, @sandra_moguel Marismas Nacionales, the largest wetland in Mexico, is still at risk almost four years since the announcement of a proposed decree to protect it from threats such as major tourist developments. Mexico is the country with the largest number of sites designated as wetlands of international importance in Latin America and yet, surprisingly, these sites have not been looked after. By signing up to the Ramsar Convention[i], the Mexican government made a commitment to draw up plans for, defend and promote the wise useof these ecosystems, as well as to expand its system of protected areas[ii]. Marismas Nacionales is the largest wetland in Mexico, located between the states of Sinaloa and Nayarit. It has been a Ramsar site since 22 June 1995, which means it belongs to the international system for the protection and regulation of wetlands of international importance. The Recommendations of the Ramsar Advisory Mission from 2010 point out that although politically the ecosystem is pided into two different regions, ecologically the two sections of wetland have many things in common and therefore their management should be tackled as a whole. The federal government has already protected the Nayarit portion of the wetland, but four years since the publication of an official Announcement of Decree on the Sinaloa Marismas Nacionales Biosphere Reserve, the procedures for the creation of this Protected Natural Area, which would cover 47,556 hectares of mangrove forest, are yet to be completed. Meanwhile, the construction of massive infrastructure remains a threat to Marismas. The Pacific Coast Integrally Planned Centre – now known as Playa Espíritu (Spirit Beach) – and the Isla de Palma Development are both projects which put this site in jeopardy. The first of these projects has obtained environmental permission to build a 10,000-room resort (although the official proposal involved 44,000 rooms), while the second includes plans to construct accommodation for 200 guests, located in a nuclear zone according to the Sinaloa Marismas Nacionales Biosphere Reserve. The Mexican Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT) justified its authorisation of the Integrally Planned Centre project explaining that the site had not been designated as a Protected Natural Area (or ANP by its Spanish acronym). It is currently studying the environmental impact study on the Isla de Palma development, but it is entirely possible that the argument of the effect it will have on a mangrove area and the habitat of highly migratory birds will not be enough to reject the application for environmental permission. In its Sectoral Program for the Environment and Natural Resources 2007-2012, the federal government promised to increase the total area of land designated as belonging to Protected Natural Areas from 22 million hectares in 2007 to 25.6 million in 2012. But how can this conservation objective be realised if the sites which are expected to be declared Protected Areas at the end of the six-year program have not been “protected”? The declaration of the Sinaloa Marismas Nacionales Biosphere Reserve is not the only decree of its kind to have been delayed: it is much the same story for La Sierra La Laguna and Balandra in Baja California Sur, Santuario Madera in Chihuahua and Ejido el Palmito in Sinaloa, to name but a few. The lack of coordination amongst administrative entities and the disparate organs which make up the environmental sector, combined with insufficient planning instruments such as ANP decrees, prevent decision-making which would favour conservation. Putting off these decrees is unjustifiable regardless of the fact that SEMARNAT’s legal department is swamped with ANP justification studies needing to be examined, or that there may be political reasons for delaying their approval. Issuing a decree on Sinaloa Marismas Nacionales is one way of guaranteeing the constitutional right to a healthy environment, as well as fulfilling international obligations such as Ramsar. It also protects the economic activities of the communities which depend on this ecosystem. [i] Ratified by Mexico on 20 December 1984 and published in the Official Gazette of the Federation on 24 January 1985. [ii] Resolution IX. 22 of the Ramsar Secretariat on wetlands and systems of protected areas, 9th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties, Uganda, 8-15 November 2005.

July 07 2011 Human Rights

Mexican Constitution protects human rights

On June 9, 2011, Mexico rewrote history. The Mexican Congress approved revisions that expressly recognize human rights in the national constitution for the first time. The new language requires all authorities to adhere to international human rights treaties Mexico is a signatory to when those treaties are more expansive than the "individual guarantees" currently on the books. As modified, Article 1 of the constitution now recognizes human rights in general and incorporates international law. This means groups such as AIDA and communities in Mexico will have better legal tools for defending the right to a healthy environment or clean drinking water. Or, for example, because indigenous communities’ right to free, prior, and informed consent is granted in international law, Mexico will now have to recognize this right. Moreover, although the Mexican constitution already recognized some rights, enforcement has been difficult. The revision provides additional legal tools and thus raises hopes for enhanced protection of those rights. These constitutional changes came after a four-year process initiated by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Mexico, and involving academics, nongovernmental organization, and independent experts. AIDA contributed by evaluating existing legal tools for protecting human rights as well as international legal obligations. In 2008, the Mexican Congress started considering the human-rights-related constitutional revision, which was finally partially approved in June, 2011. While the Mexican Congress and government should be applauded for its vision, the constitutional change’s effectiveness remains to be seen. Recognizing human rights is only the first step, and the new commitment will mean little without compliance. In coordination with our allies in the country, AIDA will monitor Mexican cases to ensure enforcement of this profound advancement and improved protection of the right to a healthy environment.

July 06 2011

Resort endangers Mexican mangroves and wetlands

A proposed resort three times the size of Cancun is bad news for Mexico’s fragile coastal mangrove ecosystems. Costa del Pacifico (CIP), a mega-resort that the Mexican government is planning to build near Mazatlan, is expected to attract three million visitors by the year 2025. If this project proceeds as planned, it will imperil nearby wetlands that safeguard Mexico’s last remaining mangrove forests and 60 endangered species. AIDA is working to protect these treasured ecosystems. There is still hope for the mangroves because Mexican authorities specified in May 2011 that CIP will be built in stages that require completion of environmental studies and permits. In June 2009, we submitted a petition to the Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention (SRC), an international treaty aimed at wetlands conservation. In this petition, AIDA and five co-signing environmental organizations called upon the SRC to encourage and support the Mexican government in conducting a comprehensive environmental review of the CIP project, as required by national and international laws. The proposed CIP resort is located at the edge of Marismas Nacionales and in close proximity to Laguna Huizache-Caimanero, both of which are classified as “wetlands of international importance". These biopersity hot spots support an astonishing array of wetlands wildlife including birds, fishes, mammals, reptiles and plants. Many are already threatened or endangered, such as the puma, jaguar, river otter, collared peccary, white-tailed deer, American Crocodile, Boa constrictor and Mexican Beaded Lizard. To provide water and electricity to resort guests, the Mexican government proposes building a hydroelectric dam in the San Pedro River. This dam would sharply reduce water flow to the Marismas wetlands, directly harming plant and animal populations and disrupting movement and migration patterns critical to many species’ survival. The government also plans to pert substantial amounts of water from the Presidio River for irrigation, an action likely to harm the Laguna Huizache-Caimanero wetlands as well. As with most golf courses, substantial amounts of chemical pesticides and fertilizers will likely be applied to the resort’s four courses and extensive landscaping. Toxic runoff from these areas would contaminate the wetlands, potentially poisoning many animal species and causing algae blooms that create oxygen-starved dead zones. All these different impacts combined would likely cause extensive damage to the forest of mangrove trees that dominate the wetlands. Mangroves are barrier ecosystems that shelter coastlines from the damaging impact of storms. Mangrove ecosystems are also thriving nurseries for breeding fish and migratory birds. Marismas Nacionales, for example, harbors more than 100 species of migratory birds. In addition, mangroves act as powerful carbon sinks that help buffer the effects of climate change. The trees actively remove excess carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere (up to 50 times more efficiently than tropical rainforests), and the peat sediment that nurtures the trees acts as a reservoir for large quantities of CO2. Consequently, when mangroves are destroyed, we lose both their ability to absorb excess CO2 and we introduce new carbon dioxide that was previously locked up in the sediment. At AIDA’s request, a SRC technical mission toured the area in June 2010 to gather information. The following August the SRC mission issued a report which recommended that the government carry out a strategic environmental evaluation to determine the cumulative effects of multiple mega-projects on these wetlands, take account of the multiple environmental goods and services provided by these wetlands, and document the inter-connected nature of the Huizache Caimanero-Marismas Nacionales ecosystems. The report further recommended that the relevant water, fishing, and environmental protection authorities be incorporated into the National Committee for Wetlands. The SRC mission noted that massive tourist developments should not be constructed in Ramsar protected wetlands, given the importance of these areas for Mexico and the international community. It also recommended that the Marismas Nacionales and Huizache Caimanero wetlands be added to the Register of Montreux, which contains a list of all Ramsar wetland sites that are gravely threatened. This is an important example of how civil society participation can help in the conservation of protected wetlands. AIDA will continue to play a role in the protection of Mexican wetlands by urging full compliance with the Ramsar Mission's recommendations.

October 17 2010 Climate Change, Human Rights, Indigenous Rights, Large Dams

Large dams in the Americas: Is the cure worse than the disease?

Large dams consistently cause severe, and often irreversible, environmental and social damage. Their construction is also often associated with violations of international human rights and environmental laws. AIDA’s report Large Dams in the Americas: Is the Cure Worse than the Disease? explores these grave impacts and explains the existing international standards that should be applied to protect the environment and human rights. The report also exposes the dangers of using large hydroelectric dams to meet increasing energy demands in Latin America. To promote greater protection of human rights, AIDA gave testimony based on this dams report to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) at a general hearing on November 2, 2009. AIDA has also shared the report’s findings with international experts, policymakers, non-governmental organizations, affected local communities, and international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank. Furthermore, AIDA staff presented legal strategy workshops at "Rivers for Life 3", an international meeting of dam-affected communities in Temacapulín, Mexico, October 1-7, 2010. The previous month, AIDA staff represented Latin America on a panel of water experts at World Water Week in Stockholm. In Large Dams in the Americas, AIDA examines five large hydroelectric dams in violation of a range of environmental and human rights laws: Yacyretá in Argentina and Paraguay, Río Madeira in Bolivia and Brazil, Baba in Ecuador, Chan-75 in Panama, and La Parota in Mexico. Through these case studies, AIDA illustrates how governments generally disregard important international obligations and standards, such as the need to conduct proper environmental and social impact assessments. In the report, we also explain the significant social and environmental impacts caused by large dams. We discuss how families suffer when they are displaced or forcefully evicted by dams and lose valuable farmland, water sources, or traditional fishing areas. We document how the people most harmed by large dams are those from vulnerable populations, including indigenous, afro-descendent and poor farming communities. We also describe how large dams typically harm the environment by flooding valuable ecosystems, dramatically altering natural flows of water, disrupting wildlife habitat, and obstructing the migratory paths of perse species, among other impacts. In addition, Large Dams in the Americas dispels the myth that dams are a source of "green energy". Even though dams do not rely on fossil fuels to generate electricity, they still contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. Hydroelectric dams create enormous reservoirs of river water that submerge valleys and lead to the decomposition of vast amounts of organic matter. As the trees and other biomasses break down, they release carbon dioxide and methane, the same greenhouse gases that are created by "dirty" technologies like coal-fired electricity plants. Turbines also liberate methane trapped in deep water and emit carbon dioxide as they release pressure from the reservoir. In tropical regions, dams can emit as much as eleven times the amount of greenhouse gases that a conventional power plant of equivalent size would emit. Given the negative impacts of large dams, AIDA's report recommends that policymakers seriously consider alternatives that protect human rights and our natural ecosystems, save energy, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Suggested alternatives include: improving energy efficiency, reducing demand, making better use of sustainable energy sources, investing in energy-efficient technologies and infrastructure, and removing barriers that hinder technology exchange between nations. AIDA wrote this report in collaboration with our participating organizations, CEMDA, CEDHA, ECOLEX and Earthjustice, as well as International Rivers, Sobrevivencia, and the Association for Conservation and Development (ACD). By educating governments, policymakers, communities, and other key players about large dams, we seek to encourage authorities to investigate the matter and apply our recommendations on how to implement dam projects in compliance with international laws. Spanish-Language Report Available Here

September 20 2010

AIDA calls on financial institutions to join the fight against climate change

International Financial Institutions (IFIs) have a significant influence on large infrastructure projects and energy development in the western hemisphere. Many of them finance projects that accelerate climate change. These include large dams that emit methane gas, mines that disturb carbon sinks, and power plants that inefficiently use highly polluting coal- and oil-based technologies. This financing, for example, is behind “La Colosa,” a huge gold mining project in Colombia. The project could affect the paramos and release the huge amounts of carbon dioxide retained by these high-altitude wetlands. The Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), the World Bank Group (WBG) and its member institution, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), recently carried out research to redesign their energy investment strategies. AIDA took part in this process, pressing the IFIs to prioritize the development of clean and sustainable energy sources. We urged them to: Consider climate change and human rights in every stage of the process; Incorporate the highest standards of human rights, social equity, energy efficiency and natural resource planning in decisions; Set aggressive but achievable targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions for the projects they support; and Prioritize energy efficiency and renewable energies while also discouraging a continued dependence on fossil fuels. AIDA also participated in the public consultation at which the IDB was called on to give comments on the current policy of the Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism (ICIM). While not perfect, the ICIM is the only grievance system available to people affected by activities funded by the institution. AIDA, together with other organizations in the region, sent a letter with the comments, which was a great opportunity to increase the transparency, accountability and effectiveness of the mechanism. Along with the IDB and the institutions of the World Bank Group, there is the National Development Bank of Brazil (BNDES), which, although not officially an IFI, behaves as such and wields a huge influence in the region. It has amassed such financial power to allow it expand outside its borders and participate in large investment projects in more than 11 countries in Latin America. The concern is that BNDES doesn’t have socio-environmental safeguards or transparency and participation policies in line with its size and influence. Instead, it is governed by much lower standards than the IFIs working in the region. BNDES doesn’t have mechanisms to ensure the protection of the environment and communities affected by the projects it finances, nor does it have an effective system for addressing complaints or claims. In fact, the projects supported by BNDES have been drawing attention from environmentalists and human rights defenders in the region for years. We have focused much of our work on influencing this organization so it will promptly implement appropriate environmental and social policies. What is interesting and encouraging is that we’re not alone in this task. In November 2012, we created a coalition called “BNDES na Mira,” which brings together over 90 people from more than 25 organizations in the region. The group is a reflection of the need to work together to achieve ambitious and needed results. At the same time and as part of the ongoing training of our team and the group in general, we are developing a report to explain the inner workings of BNDES so that we can understand their decision-making process and pressure points. We also hope to make contacts to help us have an impact in and outside the bank. To address BNDES’ lack of recognition as an IFI and hence its need to comply with the responsibilities that entails, AIDA is working on a third document that will develop this argument and provide a comparison between the safeguard and transparency policies of BNDES and other IFIs working in the region such as the World Bank and the IDB. Also as part of “BNDES na Mira,” we participate in workshops and seminars to further strengthen our joint work, share information and develop common strategies for the future and a possible long-term channel of communication with representatives of the bank. Given the huge amounts of money that IFIs and BNDES provide to projects and programs around the continent, any influence that we can have on their policymaking can lead to significant reductions in the emissions that cause climate change. These institutions have the opportunity to choose new tools to redirect their path toward truly sustainable development, and therefore to help protect our health and the environment from climate change. AIDA will continue examining and influencing the IFIs and BNDES on a constant basis and especially during their process of reshaping internal policies.

December 02 2009 Human Rights, Toxic Pollution

La Oroya before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights

In an effort to compel the Peruvian government to resolve the health crisis in La Oroya, AIDA appealed to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) in 2005, requesting that the Commission take urgent precautionary measures (in Spanish) to safeguard human rights. Working together with Earthjustice, CEDHA, and our Peruvian colleagues, we brought this case on behalf of more than 60 adults and children who live in La Oroya and suffer from health problems believed to be caused by the smelter’s pollution. The following year, after the government failed to heed Peruvian court mandates to clean up La Oroya, we submitted a full petition to the IACHR, asking the Commission to thoroughly evaluate the human rights situation and obligate the State of Peru to prevent the Doe Run Peru smelter from further contaminating the city. The Commission responded favorably to our efforts. In 2007, the IACHR requested that the State of Peru take precautionary measures to prevent irreversible harm to the health, integrity, and lives of the people of La Oroya. Specifically, as a first step, the Commission requested that the Peruvian government diagnose and provide specialized medical treatment to the group of people we represent. When the government was slow to comply, the Commission met with the parties again in 2008 and 2009, and successfully motivated the state to implement the measures appropriately, a process currently in progress. In August 2009, the IACHR accepted AIDA’s petition to fully evaluate the case against Peru. It based its decision on the fact that the illnesses and deaths allegedly resulting from the severe pollution constitute potential violations of the human rights to life and integrity. It also found that the State of Peru likely violated the public’s right to information when it manipulated and failed to publish important human health information. Finally, the Commission concluded that the State of Peru unjustifiably delayed compliance with the 2006 decision of the Peruvian Constitutional Tribunal, and thus may be violating citizen’s rights of access to justice and to effective domestic remedies. Now, several years after the IACHR first ordered Peru to provide precautionary measures, it is clear that the state’s efforts have been woefully inadequate. The 65 residents represented by AIDA have received spotty medical attention that falls far short of the “specialized” care that was promised, and the government’s efforts have not reduced health risks in a meaningful way. In March 2010, AIDA and its partners returned for another public hearing at the IACHR, to present evidence that the Peruvian government’s actions fail to satisfy the terms of the 2007 recommendations. Backed by findings from independent experts, AIDA argued that the medical evaluations conducted by the government were never completed and that the city is still contaminated by heavy metal pollution that causes a range of debilitating conditions, especially among children. The State denied these claims, insisting that it has taken sufficient action and the case should be closed. While we wait for a final decision on the case, AIDA will continue to pressure the Peruvian Ministry of Health to comply with its obligations, and to encourage the IACHR to maintain a spotlight on the Peruvian State until the pollution in La Oroya no longer threatens people’s fundamental human rights. Positive changes resulting from this case will not only benefit those we represent, but all residents of La Oroya. A decision from the IACHR will also create a vital precedent that can be applied in other cases throughout the hemisphere. IACHR hearing - La Oroya Follow us on Twitter: @AIDAorg "Like" our page on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AIDAorg

December 02 2009 Human Rights, Toxic Pollution

La Oroya triumphed in the Constitutional Court, but the ruling was not implemented

In 2006, the Peruvian Constitutional Tribunal recognized that high levels of pollution in La Oroya were causing serious health problems for the local population. The Tribunal ordered the Ministry of Health to comply with the law and take urgent action to prevent additional irreversible impacts to the environment and human health. This decision was supported by numerous scientific reports from the government, civil society organizations, and Doe Run Peru, which operates the smelter. In its decision, the Tribunal accepted all the arguments presented by the Peruvian Society for Environmental Law (SPDA), which represented La Oroya citizens in the case with AIDA’s support. The court gave the government 30 days to: Provide emergency medical attention for people contaminated with lead, giving priority to pregnant women and children; Implement an action plan to improve air quality in La Oroya; Declare States of Alert when pollution levels are excessive; Establish epidemiological and environmental monitoring programs. This ruling established a key legal precedent for three fundamental reasons. First, it recognized that extremely high pollution levels like those in La Oroya can cause serious and irreversible harm to people’s health, violating human rights. Second, it reiterated the State’s obligation to protect citizen rights, requiring specific actions to reduce health threats. Third, by ordering the State to coordinate with the polluting company, the Tribunal confirmed that corporations are responsible for conducting their businesses in ways that respect the human rights to health, to life, and to a healthy environment. In response to this ruling, the Peruvian government made some changes, but by no means complied fully with the order. Thus, in 2006, AIDA, in conjunction with Peruvian lawyers, Earthjustice, and CEDHA, brought the case to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Through this case, we seek enforcement of the Peruvian court’s order and implementation of additional measures that would truly protect health in La Oroya. Follow us on Twitter: @AIDAorg "Like" our page on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AIDAorg