Peru

Human Rights, Mining

Latin American environmental defender attacked, hospitalized

Goldman Prize winner Máxima Acuña de Chaupe reportedly attacked by mining company security guards. Washington, D.C. Goldman Environmental Prize winner Máxima Acuña de Chaupe was hospitalized after being attacked, allegedly by security forces hired by Minera Yanacocha, a subsidiary of Denver-based Newmont Mining, according to information provided by the Chaupe family. The attack took place on Máxima’s property in northern Peru that the mining company has been trying to obtain for its Conga gold mine project. “Minera Yanacocha must immediately stop their harassment of Máxima and her family, denounce attacks like this one, and call on its employees, agents and all others to ensure her safety,” said Earthworks’ Executive Director Jennifer Krill. The attack against Máxima is an alarming reminder of the murder earlier this year of Honduran activist Berta Cáceres. Berta was the 2015 Goldman Environmental Prize Winner from South and Central America. Both Berta and Máxima put their lives at risk by publicly denouncing multinational corporations threatening their communities. “Environmental defenders like Máxima, and the late Berta Cáceres before her, should not have to risk their lives to protect their homes and communities,” said Martin Wagner, managing attorney at Earthjustice. Máxima, who has lived in Tragadero Grande since the early 1990s, has been beaten, intimidated, and even sued by Minera Yanacocha. In 2014, Peruvian courts ruled in Máxima’s favor in an ongoing criminal complaint by the company. In April, prominent civil society groups including Global Witness, Sierra Club, Earthjustice, Earthworks, SumOfUs and others wrote to Newmont calling on the company to drop its lawsuits against the Chaupe family and end their harassment. The company failed to respond. "The Chaupe family has been harassed and beaten by Yanacocha for years," said Katie Redford, Founder and Director at EarthRights International, which has been supporting and advising the Chaupe family. "They are prepared to pursue all legal options to obtain justice." This most recent attack highlights the failures of both Newmont and the Peruvian government to uphold security, human rights and the consent of local communities. Newmont has ignored multiple calls from civil society to stop the physical and legal harassment of the Chaupe family, and the Peruvian government has failed to provide security for the Chaupe family as ordered by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). “Everyone involved in the mine project – the companies, the government, the security forces – is responsible for ensuring Máxima’s safety,” said Martin Wagner of Earthjustice. “By failing to speak and act against it, they are condoning this kind of attack and creating further risk to Máxima, not to mention their own reputations.” In February, Newmont filed a statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission indicating that they were no longer pursuing the proposed Conga mine that threatens the Chaupe home. “Newmont needs to immediately address the alleged involvement of its subsidiary Yanacocha in the criminal harassment of Máxima and her husband.  Newmont has reported to investors that it isn’t pursuing the Conga mine, but these attacks on poor subsistence farmers indicate that further plans are in development. What's happened is shocking, and shareholders need to know the potential risk of such an unethical venture,” said Glen Berman, Interim Executive Director of SumOfUs. For more information: Goldman Prize profile of Máxima Acuña de Chaupe: http://www.goldmanprize.org/recipient/maxima-acuna/ Blog about the Conga project cancellation: https://www.earthworksaction.org/earthblog/detail/conga_no_va#.V-BPtJMrK-4 Civil society letter to Newmont, April 2016: https://www.earthworksaction.org/library/detail/letter_to_newmont_re_maxima_acuna Grufides website: www.grufides.org

Read more
Toxic Pollution, Human Rights

Statement from AIDA and APRODEH on the International Arbitration Ruling in La Oroya

The Peruvian government must adequately address the environmental, public health and employment situation in La Oroya. Lima, Peru. On Monday the International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) ruled in favor of the Peruvian government in a case involving the Metallurgical Complex of La Oroya. As organizations representing residents in La Oroya, the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) and the Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos (APRODEH) welcome the decision, which terminates the legal proceedings against the State. The Renco Group, owner of Doe Run Peru, operator of the smelter in La Oroya, initiated arbitration after the Peruvian government claimed the company failed to comply with its environmental commitments. ICSID, a World Bank-sponsored institution, dismissed Renco’s claim due to lack of jurisdiction. While AIDA and APRODEH celebrate this positive news for the government of Peru, it is our hope that, as a result of this decision, the State concentrates its efforts on providing a sustainable solution to the vast contamination in La Oroya, and that it prioritizes the health, environment and employment situation of residents there. We also urge the government to fully comply with the precautionary measures the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights granted in 2007, and extended in 2016, in favor of a group of residents affected by the pollution. Peru also must accept its international responsibility for the human rights violations committed against the inhabitants of La Oroya in the case that is pending before the Commission. Regarding the decision, AIDA Co-Director Astrid Puentes said: “For years we have worked to dismiss the false premise that our demand for the safe and responsible operation of the Metallurgical Complex of La Oroya somehow violates the rights of workers. Doe Run Peru—or any company—can and must operate the smelter in a way that also protects and respects the basic human rights to life and health, for the workers as well as the entire population of La Oroya.”  

Read more
Human Rights, Toxic Pollution

Peru must find a comprehensive and sustainable solution for La Oroya

We call on the President-elect of Peru to take into account, in any assessment of or decision about La Oroya, the rights of the population affected by the city’s severe pollution. La Oroya, Peru. On July 6, the President-elect of Peru, Pedro Pablo Kuczynski, visited the Metallurgical Complex of La Oroya (CMLO) and announced to its workers that it was necessary for the next Congress to approve a law to extend the deadline for liquidation of the Complex. This, he said, would give the company time to secure investors and finish the copper circuit. He also asked the workers and people of La Oroya to march on Congress to support his proposal. Reflecting on these public statements, the Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos (APRODEH) and the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense would like to express the following: The city of La Oroya deserves the full attention of all levels and sectors of government to resolve in a comprehensive, specialized and sustainable way the demands of the population that, at various times in its history, has suffered, and continues to suffer, violations of their basic human rights, including the right to life, health, integrity, work and a healthy environment. Regarding the right to work, La Oroya requires a deep assessment that permits the State to propose and implement not only remedial actions, but also actions that will guarantee decent and lasting work that will sustain adequate living conditions for the entire population. No action can resolve the underlying problem in La Oroya if it does not provide a guarantee of public health for residents. In that regard, we would like to remind the President-elect that since 2007 a group of residents from La Oroya have been the beneficiaries of precautionary measures granted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights that safeguard their life and personal integrity before the impacts of highly polluted air, soil and water. In May 2016, the Commission extended those precautionary measures to include new beneficiaries. In the corresponding resolution, the Commission stressed that harm to the health of the beneficiaries is exacerbated due to the lack of comprehensive medical care offered by the State. Its also worth noting that a case is pending before the Commission which seeks to hold the Peruvian government responsible for the violations to the population’s basic rights to life, health, and integrity—as well as to the rights of children—due to the lack of control of pollution in La Oroya and the lack of effective medical care for those affected by it. We call on the President-elect to take into account, in any evaluation or decision on La Oroya, the rights of the population affected by the pollution. This should be done responsibly and with a comprehensive vision that guarantees the rights to life, health, work, and a healthy environment. It is inconceivable to favor the development of any economic activity over the health of the people. The incoming government faces the challenge of finding a comprehensive and sustainable solution for La Oroya, one that fully respects Peru’s national and international obligations to human rights and the environment. 

Read more
Toxic Pollution, Human Rights

IACHR urges Peru to protect 14 additional people affected by pollution in La Oroya

The Commission did so by extending the precautionary measures originally granted in 2007. The decision arrives six years after it was requested, and confirms the severity of health deterioration in La Oroya. It also confirms that the life and integrity of affected people are at risk, and require urgent and adequate protection by the Peruvian State. Washington DC, USA. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) urged the Peruvian government to protect the life and integrity of 14 additional people affected by toxic pollution in the city of La Oroya. They join the 65 people already protected by precautionary measures granted by the international body in 2007. The decision reaffirms that the health of the beneficiaries has deteriorated severely, they continue to be at risk, and their government must provide prompt and adequate care. The Interamerican Association of Environmental Defense (AIDA)—together with the Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos (APRODEH), the Centro de Derechos Humanos y Ambiente (CEDHA) and Earthjustice—represents the victims who benefit from the precautionary measures before the Commission. We express our satisfaction with the Commission’s decision, which arrives six years after it was originally requested. A metal smelter operated by Doe Run Peru is the source of the heavy metal contamination in La Oroya. The Commission has established that the lack of integral and specialized medical care, as well as health deterioration over time, could affect the right to life and integrity of the beneficiaries of the precautionary measures, which now number 79. “The extension of the precautionary measures reaffirms the urgent and serious situation threatening the life and integrity of the people of La Oroya. We hope the State fully complies with the provisions in favor of all of the beneficiaries, providing them with adequate and specialized medical attention,” said María José Veramendi Villa, AIDA attorney. The Commission’s decision states that the government of Peru must conduct the medical evaluations necessary to determine the levels of lead, cadmium and arsenic in the blood of affected people, in order to provide them with appropriate medical care, in accordance with international standards. The government must also report on the actions taken to investigate the facts that led to the extension of the precautionary measures, in order to avoid their repetition.    Our case on the human rights violations committed against the affected people remains pending the final decision of the Commission. AIDA and APRODEH expect that the report will hold the Peruvian government responsible for said violations.  

Read more
Toxic Pollution, Human Rights

My first visit to La Oroya

By Rodrigo da Costa Sales, AIDA attorney  “What do you think of La Oroya?” a local resident asked me the first time we met. Honestly, I wasn’t quite sure how to respond. Quickly sensing my discomfort, he joked, “It’s very beautiful, there’s so much biodiversity, and the sky is so blue...” Relieved, I laughed along with him and, since that moment, I’ve been searching for the words to describe La Oroya. La Oroya is a city of 33,000 people on the Mantaro River in central Peru, at an altitude of nearly 5,000 meters. This was my first time there, and I stayed only two days. The trip from Lima takes five hours, winding along painfully curvy roads with breathtaking views of the mountains all around. In La Oroya, however, the landscape changes drastically. The city is covered in a sheet of grey, with little to no natural life, streets full of trucks transporting iron and other heavy metals... and not much else of note. My greatest wish for my time in La Oroya was to meet the people we are representing in our case before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. After working on it for six months, I wanted finally to put faces to the names I had come to know so well on paper. Our meeting was scheduled for the evening, when residents could find time free from work and family commitments. There, we introduced them to students from Yale University, who were developing an important report on the relationship between La Oroya’s air quality and the health of city residents. Although interested in the study, and happy to hear about it, residents quickly peppered us with questions about the case. The main thing they wanted to know—an answer they have been waiting for since our petition was filed seven years ago—was when the Commission will make its decision.  They explained the many offensive comments they’ve had to endure, both from workers at the metal-smelting complex and from their own neighbors, during the long wait for a ruling. They’ve suffered threats from fellow residents of La Oroya, who wrongfully believe that the purpose of the case is to close the complex, which would leave many people without jobs. In one especially disturbing instance, a “doctor” spoke on television claiming that lead contamination does not cause any health problems. He claimed the residents of La Oroya as proof that, while contaminated by lead and other heavy metals, people could still lead normal lives. We reminded them that a process before an international organism involves years of waiting, and that we sympathized with them for everything they had been through in the past few years. But the truth is that I felt such intense frustration. It was the first time that I saw, up close, such personal desire for an international decision. I understood then that a decision on paper could actually constitute a form of reparation. The long-awaited Commission report will show the world that the effects of heavy-metal pollution on a population actually violate their personal integrity and right to health. The goal of this case is not to close the metallurgical complex, but instead to force the adoption of measures that guarantee a certain quality of life for the residents of La Oroya. The Commission’s report will be the instrument in this case by which international and human rights law becomes real, effective and transformative.  I returned from La Oroya almost a week ago, and I’m still searching for the words to describe such a place. Truthfully, La Oroya didn’t seem very nice at first. But I quickly came to realize that the beauty of a place comes not only from its natural and man-made attractions; it comes also, and perhaps more importantly, from the beauty of its people. In that sense, I’ve never seen a city quite as beautiful as La Oroya. This blog is dedicated all the victims of the case in La Oroya. I hope that they will achieve justice, and that because of them, a case like this is never repeated around the world. It is also dedicated to Astrid Puentes and Maria José, AIDA’s attorneys in charge of the La Oroya case, who inspire me daily to work for a more just world. 

Read more
Toxic Pollution, Human Rights

Still Waiting for Justice in La Oroya

Part 1 of a 2-Part Series on the Human Rights Situation in La Oroya, Peru. By María José Veramendi Villa Juana[1] is tired. She and her neighbors have been waiting eight years for a ruling; eight years for a decision that could better their lives, clean their air, attend to their sick children and families. What began as a courageous and hopeful quest for justice has become a discouraging waiting game. Since 2007, a group of residents in La Oroya, Peru, has acted as petitioner in a case before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Community of La Oroya v. Peru. For nearly a century, their city has been contaminated by the operation of a metallurgical complex (smelter) within its borders. The smelter has blackened the air, poisoned their bodies, and released toxic chemicals into the land and water. La Oroya was once identified as one of the most polluted cities in the world. The severe contamination has, and continues to have, grave impacts on the health of the city’s residents. Realities of La Oroya When AIDA’s co-executive director Anna Cederstav first arrived in La Oroya in 1997, women were walking around with scarves covering their faces, a vain attempt to ease the pain of breathing. Juana explained that she had felt the steady burning in her eyes and throat—the effects of contamination—since she could remember, but didn’t pay it any mind. Like most of the population, she thought it was normal. She didn’t really know what clean air was because she’d never experienced it. AIDA has worked for nearly two decades with the community of La Oroya. In 2002, we published the report La Oroya Cannot Wait with the Peruvian Society for Environmental Law. That report began to reveal to the community the severity of the pollution and health risks they were facing on a daily basis. The community realized they had to do something. Juana said it was in 2003, more than 80 years after the smelter began operating, that she became aware of the contamination. Through work with her parish, she was able to access information and learn about what was happening in her city.  From there, she connected the dots—the respiratory problems in her family were, in fact, a result of her city’s extreme contamination. The quest for justice Residents submitted their case before the Inter-American Commission after their attempts at justice within Peru produced no remedy. A 2006 ruling by Peru’s Constitutional Tribunal against the State ordered it to adopt measures to protect the health of the community, but the State took no such action. In 2007, the Commission urged the Peruvian state to carry out precautionary measures—a specialized diagnosis of 65 residents and treatment for those who showed irreversible damage to their lives or personal integrity. Juana said receiving news of the precautionary measures was a happy moment because “we knew that we were winning something. At the beginning, everything went well and we believed that everything would be fixed, (but) with the passing of months—years—there were no answers.” Then, in 2009, the Commission issued a report admitting AIDA’s petition, declaring that the State’s omissions in the face of pollution could, if proven, represent human rights violations. But still, nearly a decade after the petition was first filed, the victims await a decision, the precautionary measures have yet to be enforced, and the State’s responsibility for the acts have yet to be established.  “It’s taking a really long time, and not all of us have the patience or desire to keep waiting,” Juana said. Time affects the victims, wearing them out until they begin to waver and give up fighting for their right to justice. They become even more vulnerable as they face a city hostile to anyone who fights for their rights to life and health, a state that denies its responsibility and looks for any excuse to avoid assuming responsibility, and a company that wants to polish its reputation and use its economic power to manipulate the government. Where is the law in these cases? Where is justice? Juana explained that leaving La Oroya would be impossible for her family, because there they have work. She remains committed to achieving change with the lawsuit. But that’s not the case for everyone.  La Oroya contains thousands of stories of families whose lives were radically changed due to the city’s contamination and the subsequent damages to their health and lives. There are those who had to abandon their homes because they did not see a future in the city, and those who have been unable to leave La Oroya because their entire lives and family are there. Then there are those who have suffered painful attacks and insults from their own neighbors in a community worried about losing jobs, but who march forward with the conviction that, one day, change will come and La Oroya will be a better and fairer place for them, their children, and their grandchildren. I trust and hope that the law will deliver justice to salvage those years of waiting. [1] The name has been changed to protect the client. This blog is based on a longer article Maria José wrote on the case entitled La Oroya: A Painful Wait for Justice. It was published as Chapter 8 of DeJusticia’s book, Human Rights in Minefields: Extractive Economies, Environmental Conflicts and Social Justice in the Global South. Read the full account here.  

Read more
Peru child
Climate Change, Human Rights, Toxic Pollution

Indifference to life and health in Peru

By María José Veramendi Villa, @MaJoVeramendi In Peru, every year around 400 children die of cold. I learned this dramatic figure a few weeks ago when I read a column titled “Dying from Indifference,” by Congresswoman Veronika Mendoza. I asked with genuine indignation: How is it possible that children could die of cold in a country that prides itself on its mineral wealth, its great attraction for foreign investment, its tourism and culinary strengths? A country that hosts major world events such as the Conference of State Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change? Besides the lack of political will from our leaders, who worry more about looking good in photos taken at grand events, the answer can be found in a key paragraph of Mendoza’s column: “Where could such political will come from if no one is moved, if no one is indignant that these children die, perhaps because they tend to be “somewhere else,” usually peasants, who often speak Quechua or Aymara?” Regret before prevention On July 18, 2015, the government issued a supreme decree that declared a state of emergency in some districts and provinces of the country, due to frost. The first paragraph of the decree states that “every year and on a recurring basis, between the months of May and September, our country experiences weather events related to low temperatures, such as frost in our highlands, as was observed in recent seasons with extreme temperatures well below 0 ° C ...” If these weather events occur every year, why not prevent their impacts? In 2004, information from the Tyndall Centre, University of Manchester, revealed that Peru is the third most vulnerable country to the effects of climate change, the main cause of such phenomena as increasingly intense frost. Indifference to the violation of human rights Indifference in Peru not only manifests itself in children dying of cold in remote communities, but also La Oroya, a city only 175 kilometers from Lima. In a context of extreme industrial pollution, the population, including children, has for many years suffered violations of the rights to life and health. On August 11, a strike organized by the workers of the metallurgical complex in La Oroya, and the subsequent closure of the main highway that provides access to the center of the country, set off alarm bells in the city. Not bells that should sound when pollution limits are exceeded, but those of a long-neglected social demand. The metallurgical complex, owned by the company Doe Run Peru, is for sale and in the process of liquidating. According to information released to the public, no interested party submitted a financial offer because Peruvian environmental standards are too strict. In response, the workers took control of the road, demanding that the State relax those standards so the complex can be sold and they retain their jobs. The protest left one dead and 60 wounded. It ended after the signing of a five-point agreement, which does not mention the rights to life and health of the population of La Oroya. In a city that has been subjected to unchecked contamination for more than 90 years, Doe Run Peru has continued to obtain extensions to meet its environmental obligations. In July 2015, the company obtained a further extension of 14 years for the complex to meet environmental standards. But what about the life and health of the people? The State has not seen that environmental standards are met in La Oroya. Neither has it fully safeguarded the health of its inhabitants: • The air quality alert system has not been activated properly. • The doctors in charge of health and the heavy metals strategy are scarce and face the constant risk of running out of resources to continue working. • The State insists on asking the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to lift the measures ordered in 2007 to protect the lives and health of a group of La Oroya residents. Speaking Loudly Children are as vulnerable to cold as they are to the effects of industrial pollution. However, the State only comes to their aid in times of crisis or when it is too late. It sounds like a cliché, but children are our hope. Let us listen so they don’t die of cold and are no longer poisoned! Otherwise, we will also be victims of the disease of indifference. 

Read more
From left to right, part of the team that worked on the project: Anna Cederstav, codirector of AIDA; Andrea Treece, Earthjustice lawyer; and Haydée Rodríguez, AIDA attorney.
Capacity Building, Oceans

Five Reasons to Protect the Peruvian Anchoveta

The anchoveta (Engraulis ringens), a wide-eyed fish 12 to 15 centimeters long, is prevalent in the Pacific coastal waters of Peru. When I first heard of this little fish, I had no idea how important it was for both the environment and the Peruvian population. Commercially, the anchoveta is used to produce fishmeal for animal feed and, to a lesser extent, for human consumption. But it’s also an important source of nutrition for the fish, mammals and birds of the Humboldt Current, one of the most biodiverse cold-water ocean currents in the world. Two years ago, AIDA began collaborating with the Peruvian Society for Environmental Law and Earthjustice to recommend changes to Peruvian law that would ensure sustainable management of the anchoveta fishery.  We’ve recently released a report in which we stress the importance of ecosystem management. Decisions about how much anchoveta to catch, and when, should take into account both the commercial fishing industry and the health of the Humboldt Current ecosystem. Here are the five most important reasons to promote ecosystem management of the Peruvian anchoveta fishery:  1. Species of mammals, fish and birds depend on the anchoveta for nourishment.  Most marine predators of the Humboldt Current depend, to some extent, on the anchoveta. The small fish is food to Humboldt Penguins and other birds, marine mammals like sea lions, and other commercial fish, such as hake, horse mackerel and mackerel. Fishery management that considers the ecosystem as a whole will help to save not just the anchoveta, but the many species that depend on it as well.  2. The anchoveta population is at risk.  The Peruvian anchoveta fishery has been on the verge of collapse.  It has had to be closed twice: once in the early-1970s and once in the late-1990s. The lack of an adequate ecosystem management plan creates fluctuations in the anchoveta population. Continuing this way in a year with reduced populations could mean the collapse of the fishery.  3. More and better controls over what can be fished are needed.  The demand for fish implies, increasingly, that more juvenile anchoveta are being captured before they have reached the age of reproduction. As a result, the anchoveta cannot replenish its population fast enough to keep up with harvests. 4. Comprehensive fisheries management plans do not exist.  The laws that regulate the anchoveta fishery differ depending on whether the fish is for human consumption or will be used to produce by-products such as fishmeal and fish oils.  A management plan that integrates both uses must be established to create a truly sustainable fishery that also takes into account the anchoveta’s relationship with other species.  5. Ecosystem management of the Peruvian anchoveta would set an example for other countries.  The Peruvian anchoveta fishery is the largest in the world. Implementing institutional and regulatory reform to promote ecosystem management of the species would set a precedent for other countries in the region to improve their standards.  Learn more I invite you to review the report (in Spanish). Now is the time to care for the little species that do a big job in our seas!  The ocean knows no bounds and its relationships are complex. Ecosystem management of the anchoveta fishery will ensure that there will be enough fish to feed the needs of industry and maintain the ecological balance of the Humboldt Current.

Read more
Climate Change, Human Rights

Human rights in the new climate agreement: Tomorrow will be too late

Observing the UN Climate Negotiations is like entering another world. Governments, organizations and individuals advance their agendas, and all are discussed simultaneously: mitigation, adaptation, financing, Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), loss and damages, common but differentiated responsibilities, and many other matters.  The common objective is making binding commitments to tackle climate change.  As a member of AIDA’s team, together with my colleagues Andrea Rodríguez and Víctor Quintanilla, I participated last December in the 20th session of the Conference of Parties of the United Nationals Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 20) in Lima, Peru. Being there was an incredible learning experience.  The Conference was two weeks of intense negotiations, even more so in the final days, intended to pave the way for the new binding climate agreement that will be adopted at the UN Climate Conference in Paris later this year. The result was the Lima Call for Climate Action, a document approved in overtime hours as an emergency measure so that the meeting did not conclude without an agreement.  The document has been much written about, touted by some as a great success and by others as a failure. I would simply like to point out that a key point is missing from the Lima appeal: the recognition that climate change interferes with the enjoyment of human rights.  Not for lack of trying. Mary Robinson, the former United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights, who is now the Secretary General’s Special Envoy for Climate Change, warned that climate change is "the greatest human rights issue of the 21st Century." Photo: Máximo Ba Tiul presents the case of the Santa Rita hydroelectric project in an event during the COP20. Credit: AIDA.   Experts and UN rapporteurs have asked States that are part of the Framework Convention to include in the coming agreement specific language stating that all parties must, in all climate change related actions, promote, protect, respect and fulfill with the human rights of all people. These are the words written by 28 experts and special rapporteurs to the UN in an open letter sent on October 17, 2014. Also, more than 70 independent experts and UN special rapporteurs also called for this recognition on December 10, International Human Rights Day. AIDA and colleague organizations have been insisting not only that the new climate agreement should incorporate comprehensive and operative language on human rights, but also that the actions taken to mitigate climate change respect human rights.  Amidst the technicalities and the negotiations, I saw the human face of climate change. During the Lima Conference, I met Máximo Ba Tiul, an indigenous Maya Poqomchi from Guatemala and the representative of the Tezulutlán Peoples Council. Máximo participated in a variety of activities during the Conference, carrying with him the message of the indigenous peoples affected by the Santa Rita dam, a project registered under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Convention.   Through the Mechanism, industrialized countries may obtain carbon credits by implementing emission-reduction projects in developing countries. The problem is that many of these projects have caused human rights violations. For example, the Guatemalan government neither consulted with nor obtained the free, prior, and informed consent of the affected indigenous communities before authorizing Santa Rita. Furthermore, security forces have harassed communities that oppose the dam and charged opposition leaders as criminals. Violence and repression have escalated: a worker from the company murdered two children, David, 11, and Ageo, 13, in August 2013.  In August 2014, the violence flared. More than a thousand state agents raided the area and attacked community members, among them pregnant women, the elderly, and children, who were all forced to flee. Photo: Machinery beginning the dredging of the Dolores River for the construction of the Santa Rita Dam at the end of 2011. Credit: Community Archive.    The Santa Rita hydroelectric project has clearly led to human rights violations, which continue to this day. Crime, violence, and harassment remain unpunished. The project continues to hold its certification from the Clean Development Mechanism. Going public at one of the Conference events, Máximo asked: Why do you have to violate human rights to mitigate the effects of climate change? The only response: silence. Cases like Guatemala’s Santa Rita dam, emblematic of many projects registered under the Clean Development Mechanism, remind us of the urgent need to incorporate human rights protection into all climate actions. Human rights protection must be binding in the new climate agreement to be approved in Paris. Otherwise, the defense of communities’ rights will be another fight lost in the fight against climate change. The time is NOW. Tomorrow will be too late!

Read more
Accountability and Transparency, Climate Change

COP20 fails to provide certainty on climate finance and human rights

The 20th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP20) was held this month in Lima, Peru, with the goal of drafting a new climate agreement, to be signed in Paris in 2015. The conference, however, concluded with an unimpressive draft agreement that failed in two key tasks: providing certainty about funding to combat climate change, and including human rights protections in climate actions. For AIDA and other civil society organizations, it was important that the Lima agreement lay out a roadmap for how and when governments will fulfill their commitment to provide 100 billion dollars per year by 2020 to finance mitigation activities and adaptation to climate change. "Developing countries need to know with certainty how much money they have and what the source of it will be, so they can plan their fight against climate change," said Andrea Rodriguez, a senior attorney for AIDA. The Conference provided no such certainty. This is evidenced by the decision made on the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), which left out finance and adaptation—key aspects to the countries most vulnerable to extreme changes in climate.  The INDCs decision was meant to contain specific information on the scope, format, timeframe and assessment. Instead it included only contributions for mitigation, without stating whether or not they will be compulsory. During the conference, AIDA and global allied organizations encouraged State Parties to ensure the draft of the new agreement include specific language on the protection, promotion, respect for, and observance of human rights in all climate actions. As a result of the collective effort, the Philippines, Mexico, and Ghana made specific calls for the draft and final agreements to include such references. "There is no doubt that climate change interferes with the enjoyment of human rights. The agreement in Lima includes no reference to human rights, but we will work hard to ensure their full inclusion in the Paris agreement, not only in words, but also in deed," said María José Veramendi Villa, an AIDA senior attorney. Yet it was not all bad. AIDA drew attention to the new pledges that had arrived to the Green Climate Fund, which brought its total funding to 10.2 billion dollars. We highlighted the momentum in Latin America that contributed to that achievement, with countries such as Peru, Colombia, Mexico and Panama making the effort to contribute, despite their status as developing countries. "Although all contributions are welcome, it is important to emphasize that the amount collected so far does not yet cover the financing needs of developing countries," Rodriguez stated. The conference also made public the climate finance actions of governmental and nongovernmental actors in the region. The Climate Finance Day organized by AIDA and allied organizations facilitated a dialogue on regional progress in preparing for accessing resources, the increasing involvement of the private sector in fighting climate change, and the conditions that such support requires—legal certainty being one of them.  Also that day, civil society shared their experiences with transparency and accountability, which are essential not only to obtain greater resources, but also to ensure their effective use. AIDA reported on the opportunity the Green Climate Fund provides for countries of the continent to improve public participation in the design, development, and implementation of policies and climate projects. Much remains to be done to find effective solutions to climate change. We will continue contributing to the achievement of this goal!

Read more