Project
Photo: Manuel VictoriaDefending the Veracruz Reef from a port expansion project
In the Gulf of Mexico, 27 coral reefs form a submarine mountain range running for miles between six islands. Hundreds of colorful fish species, sea urchins, starfish, and sea grasses share the reef with an abundance of other life forms. Fishing, sport diving, and beach tourism thrive along the coast. This is the magnificent Veracruz Reef, the largest coral ecosystem in the Gulf.
In 1992, Mexico’s government declared the Veracruz Reef System a Natural Protected Area. In 2004, it was listed as a Wetland of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention, a treaty for the protection of wetlands including reefs.
Despite the reef’s recognized significance, in 2013 the government reduced the size of the Natural Protected Area and approved a port expansion project. Local communities and organizations challenged the project's environmental permits, demanding protection of the right to a healthy environment.
On February 9, 2022, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation unanimously decided that the authorities violated the right to a healthy environment of Veracruz residents by authorizing the port expansion based on a fragmented environmental impact assessment. This means that the permits for the project are non-existent and that the impacts of the project on the health of the reefs must be studied again, this time in a comprehensive manner, and even the viability of the project.
The ruling is a historic precedent not only in Mexico, but for the entire region, as it allows access to environmental justice for the people neighboring an ecosystem affected by a project.
Partners:
Related projects
Plan Colombia Aerial Herbicide Spraying Not Proved Safe for the Environment – Released to US Congress
For Immediate Release February 14, 2007 CONTACTS: Anna Cederstav, AIDA (510) 550-6700 [email protected] Astrid Puentes, AIDA (5255) 52120141 [email protected] PLAN COLOMBIA AERIAL HERBICIDE SPRAYING NOT PROVEN SAFE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT Critique of recent studies by international environmental NGO released to Congress today OAKLAND, CA, MÉXICO, D.F. - In December, the Colombian government violated a bilateral accord with Ecuador by spraying a mixture of herbicides intended to destroy coca crops within 10 kilometers of the Ecuadorian border. To justify the spraying, Colombia relied on studies by a team from the Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD) of the Organization of American States (OAS), claiming that the spray mixture is safe. However, an independent review of CICAD’s recent studies, released to members of the U.S. Congress today, shows that the pesticide mixture being sprayed has not, in fact, been proven safe for the environment, and that Ecuador has substantial cause to oppose the spraying. According to the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), the first CICAD Environmental and Human Health Assessment of the Aerial Spray Program for Coca and Poppy Control in Colombia, released in 2005, did not assess many of the greatest potential ecological and human health risks posed by the aerial eradication program in Colombia. Because of these omissions and the potential environmental risk of the spraying, the U.S. Congress requested further studies to better assess whether the mixture is truly safe for the environment. Preliminary results from the follow-up studies, released in August 2006, show that the mixture is indeed potentially harmful to the environment, and particularly to amphibians – the spray mixture killed 50 percent of the amphibians exposed in less than 96 hours. According to Earthjustice scientist and AIDA’s Program Director Anna Cederstav, “Contrary to what is argued by the government, this study shows sufficient cause for concern to suspend the sprayings due to potential environmental impacts, especially considering that Colombia has the second highest amphibian biodiversity in the world and the most threatened amphibian species.” Many other key questions about the environmental impacts of the spraying also remain unanswered, despite the U.S. Congressional mandate to conduct the studies. For example, the State Department has not provided adequate information about the location of and risk to sensitive water bodies and has done nothing to address whether other threatened species are likely to be harmed. Without these determinations, the claim by the Colombian government that it is safe to spray along the Ecuadorian border is misinformed. “Given the number of unanswered questions about the safety of the spraying, and considering the precautionary principle and the international obligation not to cause impacts to the territories of other States, the Colombian government should halt spraying immediately, and instead implement more effective and environmentally safe alternatives for coca eradication,” said Astrid Puentes, AIDA’s Legal Director.
Read moreAIDA critical of Colombian spraying in Ecuadorian border region
AIDA critical of Colombian spraying in Ecuadorian border region The Colombian government is violating a bilateral accord with Ecuador by spraying a mixture of herbicides intended to destroy coca crops within 10 kilometers of the Ecuadorian border. Colombia is relying on studies by a team from the Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD) of the Organization of American States (OAS) to claim that the spray mixture is safe. AIDA’s independent review of CICAD's recent studies, however, shows that the pesticide mixture being sprayed has not, in fact, been proven safe for the environment, and that Ecuador has substantial cause to oppose the sprayings. The first CICAD Environmental and Human Health Assessment of the Aerial Spray Program for Coca and Poppy Control in Colombia, released in 2005, did not assess many of the greatest potential ecological and human health risks posed by the aerial eradication program in Colombia. The U.S. Congress requested further studies to determine whether the mixture is truly harmful to the environment. Preliminary results from the follow-up studies, released in August 2006, show that the mixture is indeed potentially harmful to the environment, and particularly to amphibians – the spray mixture killed 50 percent of the amphibians exposed within 96 hours. Additionally, the State Department has not provided adequate information about the location of and risk to sensitive water bodies and has done nothing to address whether other threatened species are likely to be harmed. Without these determinations, any claim by the Colombian government that the spray mixture is safe enough to spray along the Ecuadorian border is misinformed.
Read moreAIDA Calls for Alternative Development Programs in Colombia
AIDA Report Highlights Need for Alternative Programs in Colombia After six years of spraying herbicides over large areas of the Colombian countryside under "Plan Colombia," the aerial spraying program has failed to meet the goal of eliminating 50 percent of illicit crops in this country. Despite an investment of nearly US$1.2 billion, and the spraying of more than four times the initial area of coca crops, coca cultivation in Colombia continues, at nearly the same levels as when the program originated. Meanwhile, the spraying continues to cause severe social impacts and pose unknown environmental risk. AIDA has prepared a report analyzing some of the participatory, sustainable, alternative development programs that have proven more effective than aerial spraying. The report recommends that the U.S. and Colombian governments reevaluate the current policy and substantially increase support for such alternatives. The report highlights the need for a comprehensive approach to the problem of illegal crop cultivation, with a strategy that addresses the root-causes of the problem. The report provides detailed information and an analysis of five programs implemented by different actors, all of which can serve as models or provide lessons learned for new programs. Although improvements can still be made, alternative development programs have yielded concrete, positive results and have been far more cost-effective than the spraying program.
Read more