Mexico

Mexican government breaches international commitments to put Veracruz Reef System at risk

Organizations denounce the incident to the Ramsar Convention, an international treaty for the protection of wetlands. By modifying the boundaries of the coral reef national park, the federal government is seeking to expand the Port of Veracruz. Mexico City, Mexico. Civil society organizations have denounced to international bodies that Mexico’s government intends to modify the boundaries of the Veracruz Coral Reef System National Park, known as PNSAV in its Spanish acronym, in order to expand the Port of Veracruz. This violates the government’s commitment to preserve and protect a wetland of global importance.   Mexico’s Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources (Semarnat) authorized the port expansion project on December 19, 2013.   In response, the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) and the Mexican Center for Environmental Law (CEMDA) – with support from the Veracruz Assembly of Environmental Initiatives and Defense (LAVIDA), Pobladores A.C., Paths and Meetings for Sustainable Development (SENDAS), Litiga OLE, Pronatura Veracruz and the doctor and researcher Leonardo Ortíz Lozano – filed with the Ramsar Secretariat a report on the federal government’s failure to comply with that international treaty.   The Veracruz Reef System was declared a Protected Natural Area (PNA) in 1992 with the aim of protecting the human right to a healthy environment. In 2004, it was registered as a wetland of international importance on the Ramsar List.   While Mexico can modify the boundaries of sites on the Ramsar List, this must be done in accordance with the grounds and procedures identified in the Ramsar Convention. However, the federal government intends to modify the area of the PNSAV, contradicting to its own actions and acting in breach of the principle of law. [1]   According to public information secured from the National Commission of Natural Protected Areas (Conanp) [2], the Mexican government based its decision to amend the boundaries of the PNSAV on a so-called error clause contained in Resolution VIII.22. This clause can only be invoked when there are changes in the ecological characteristics stemming from the degradation of part of a wetland.   The federal government has yet to scientifically prove that there have been any ecological changes to the detriment of the wetland. Of note, it is questionable that the Conanp decided to notify the Ramsar Convention Secretariat of the alleged error on the eve of the Semarnat’s authorization of the Port of Veracruz expansion.   Another legal way to change the boundaries of Ramsar sites is if there is "urgent national interest," as contained in Resolution VIII.20. This requires a prior environmental assessment and a consultation with all stakeholders, something that has not yet happened.   "The federal government is determined to illegally change the polygonal of the PNSAV every time that it is not legally possible to proceed according to the procedures established by the Ramsar Convention," said Sandra Moguel, an AIDA legal adviser.   "The polygonal change and the environmental impact authorization of the proposed expansion of the Port of Veracruz are unilateral decisions by the federal government in which the arguments of the affected peoples were not taken into account," she added.   The Mexican government is violating the Ramsar Convention, and hence its international obligations on the conservation of a wetland of international importance. If the amendment to the PNSAV goes through, the government will hurt the right of Mexicans – and the people of Veracruz, in particular – to a healthy environment.   Because of this, AIDA and the other civil society organizations requested the Ramsar Convention Secretariat to consider as unacceptable the proposed reduction of the PNSAV’s boundaries. We also requested that these proposed changes be discussed at Ramsar’s next Conference of the Contracting Parties to be held in Uruguay in 2015. Editor's notes: 1. According to this general principle of law, the authority can only do what is expressly mandated by law. 2. Information request 1615100033713.

Saving the San Pedro Mezquital River from a destructive large dam

Protecting the rich marine life of Cabo Pulmo Reef

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.

Victory: Biosphere Reserve in Baja California Saved from Toxic Mine

Threats from Proposed Dam in La Parota, Mexico, Challenged in Amicus Curiae Legal Brief

AIDA and other international and Mexican organizations submitted a legal brief (Amicus Curiae) to the Collegiate Tribunal of Guerrero in Acapulco in support of a constitutional lawsuit brought by CECOP and the Mexican Center for Environmental Law against the Federal Commission of Electricity (CFE) and other authorities. The lawsuit alleges that the Mexican authorities failed to consult with affected parties and adequately evaluate the environmental impacts of the construction of La Parota dam. Approval of the hydroelectric project disregards national laws, as well as international human rights and environmental laws, including those that protect the rights to a fair trial and economic, social and environmental rights. Among other things, the project’s major human rights violations are a lack of information provided to those affected by the dam and gaps in the comprehensive environmental impact study, which is designed to evaluate damages the dam will cause, measures to prevent impacts, as well as alternatives to the project. Considering these flaws and the human rights violations of people affected by the La Parota megaproject, we appealed to the Collegiate Tribunal of Guerrero, arguing that it should make use of its power, accept the arguments of the Amicus, and cancel all work related to the construction of the La Parota dam until the Mexican government completely complies with local people’s demands and applicable national and international laws. AIDA will continue pursing this paradigmatic case because it is an example of how infrastructure development can cause severe environmental damages and human rights violations in the hemisphere.

Legal victory! - Peruvian Constitutional Tribunal Orders the Government to Address the Public Health Emergency in La Oroya

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 12, 2006 Contact: Dr. Anna Cederstav, Earthjustice/AIDA, (English) (510) 457-4010 [email protected] Dr. Carlos Chirinos, SPDA, (Spanish) (+511) 441-9171 [email protected] Hunter Farrell, MOSAO/Technical Roundtable, English (+511) 97094921 Legal victory! Peru Supreme Court Demands Government Protect Public Health from Doe Run Smelter in La Oroya LIMA, PERU — Peru's Supreme Court has given the Ministry of Health 30 days to declare a health emergency in La Oroya, and to put in place an emergency health plan for the city, widely considered one of the most contaminated cities in the Western Hemisphere.   The city is the home of a multi-metal smelter, owned and operated by the Doe Run Company of St. Louis, Missouri, one of the companies owned by Mr. Ira Rennert and the Renco group of New York.   While the ruling named the Health Ministry as the agency primarily responsible for protecting the health of La Oroya's population, it also called on the Doe Run Company to reduce toxic contamination and protect public health in La Oroya. The ruling requires the Health Ministry to pay special attention to health risks faced by children and pregnant women.   “This is great news for the citizens of La Oroya, who have received justice from the Courts, and who -- in spite of having been threatened and persecuted for their role in demanding health protection in La Oroya -- had faith that justice would prevail,” said Dr. Carlos Chirinos, the attorney with the Peruvian Society for Environmental Law responsible for bringing the case almost four years ago. An initial victory in the lower court had been immediately appealed by Peru's Health Ministry, forcing the plaintiffs to bring the suit to the Supreme Court.   The Supreme Court ruling allows 30 days for the Health Ministry to declare a health emergency in La Oroya, an action demanded by the Movement for Health in La Oroya (MOSAO) since 2003. A spokeswoman for the group, Dr. Eliana Ames, expressed satisfaction with the ruling: "This is the first time the Peruvian Government has acted to defend the health of all La Oroya's children and population." Earlier efforts of Peru's Environmental Health Authority (DIGESA) were limited to a few hundred of La Oroya's estimated 10,000 children, more than 97% of whom suffer from excessive levels of lead, according to last year's study by the St. Louis University's Public Health School.   A related request to protect health by issuing precautionary measures for La Oroya is still pending before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. This case was brought by AIDA (Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense), Earthjustice, CEDHA (Center for Human Rights and Environment), and Carlos Chirinos.