Blog
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.
Read more
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
Read more
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
Read more