Press Center
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
Statement on the murders of environmental defenders in Honduras and Brazil
Threats to, as well as the intimidation, harassment and murder of environmental defenders must stop now! Yesterday we learned of the senseless murder of Lesbia Yaneth Urquía Urquía, a defender of the environment and indigenous rights who fought against the construction of the Aurora I dam in La Paz, Honduras. In a similar tragedy in Brazil, last month authorities found the lifeless body of Nilce de Souza Magalhães, a recognized leader of the Movement of People Affected by Dams (MAB), who worked for the rights of Amazon communities affected by large dams, predatory fishing practices and other threats. Both instances reinforce a tragic trend in Latin America, a region home to seven of the ten most dangerous countries in the world for environmental defenders. According to Global Witness, 185 environmental activists were assassinated worldwide in 2015; two thirds of them were from Latin America. Now, more than ever, it’s time to call for accountability. Lesbia Yaneth worked in alliance with the Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras (COPINH), and her death comes just four months and four days after the assassination of the Council’s leader, Berta Cáceres. Nilce disappeared in January, her body finally discovered on June 21 in the lake formed by the Jirau dam, against which she had fought in defense of the rights of her community. Regarding these unfortunate deaths, María José Veramendi Villa, senior attorney of AIDA’s Human Rights and Environment Program, said: “The increasing rate of murder of environmental defenders in Latin America is alarming. States must guarantee a favorable environment in which people can safely perform their work to protect the natural world. States must also investigate and appropriately punish those responsible for these violent acts. The murders of those who bravely defend the environment must not go unpunished. Threats to, as well as the intimidation, harassment and murder of environmental defenders must stop now!”
Read more
Victims of business-influenced human rights violations face obstacles to achieving justice
The asymmetry of power between companies and affected people, among other factors, makes access to justice difficult in the Americas. Organizations provided detailed information on this problem during a hearing before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). Santiago, Chile. Across the Americas, people and communities whose human rights have been violated by business activities face obstacles when exercising their right to access justice and achieve reparations for damages done. They are often confronted with criminalization, harassment and threats. Among other reasons, the situation reflects the reality that, in many countries, businesses are not properly controlled and may even receive government incentives to continue operations, despite the fact that they violate human rights. In a hearing before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, civil society organizations[1] demonstrated, through emblematic cases in South America, that this is a problem that happens throughout the region. One of these cases occurred in Brazil on November 5, 2015, when a dam of mining waste owned by Samarco burst in the Río Doce basin. The rupture caused the worst socio-environmental disaster in the country’s history: tons of toxic sludge moved down the river, destroying homes, schools, crops and livestock on its slow and deadly path to the Atlantic Ocean. The government and the company have since closed the case on the disaster, after reaching a settlement in which the victims were not even able to participate. “I lived a quiet life. I never would have expected to see what I saw, to witness families destroyed. We need employment, but we need it responsibly, not in a way that ends up killing people. We are asking for help now, because we can’t let these companies do whatever they want. If this Commission can help us, we would be grateful,” said Antonio Gregorio Santos, a victim of the case in Brazil. In the hearing, the organizations also referred to the case of Southern Peaks Mining, financed by the British-owned Barclays Bank, in which they are accused of breaching agreements with Mala communities in Peru. Here the victims found persecution and illegal detention in their search for justice. “We have identified various barriers to access to justice for the victims. Some—such as socio-economic, cultural and linguistic barriers—were identified in the Commission’s Report on indigenous peoples, afro-descendent communities and extractive industries,” said María José Veramendi Villa, attorney at the Inter-American Association for Environmental Defense, one of the petitioning organizations at the hearing. “Many obstacles are exacerbated in disputes with companies due, in large part, to the sharp asymmetry that exists in this relationship, expressed, for example, in political interference on the part of companies and in the lack of adequate independent safeguards for judicial power in many countries of South America.” The organizations requested that the Commission remind the States of their obligation to guarantee access to justice for those who have suffered human rights violations at the hands of companies, and urge them to strengthen domestic legislation accordingly. They also requested that the Commission develop binding standards regarding business and human rights in its rulings on petitions and individual cases—as well as in its thematic reports—in particular with regards to access to redress mechanisms. Finally, they highlighted the work of those who defend human rights against the actions of companies and reminded States that they must provide adequate conditions for their operation. [1] Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA, regional); Centro de Información sobre Empresas y Derechos Humanos (CIEDH, regional); Centro por la Justicia y el Derecho Internacional (CEJIL, regional); Centro de Derechos Humanos y Ambiente (CEDHA, Argentina); Campanha para parar o poder das Corporações (Brasil); Justiça Global (Brasil); Pensamiento y Acción Social (PAS, Colombia); Project on Organizing, Development, Education, and Research (PODER, México); Fundar Centro de Análisis e Investigación A.C (México); Proyecto de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales (ProDESC, México); Centro Mexicano de Derecho Ambiental (CEMDA, México); Código DH - Comité de Defensa Integral de Derechos Humanos Gobixha (México) y Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos (Perú).
Read more
Statement of AIDA, APRODEH and Justiça Global on the financial crisis affecting the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR)
The organizations decry the affront to human rights in the region and urges members of the Organization of American States to fulfill their responsibility to adequately fund the Commission. Washington, DC, USA. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) announced yesterday that a grave financial crisis has led to the suspension of site visits, the cancellation of hearings, and the imminent loss of 40 percent of its staff. The Commission is an autonomous organ of the Organization of American States (OAS). Its mandate is to promote the protection of human rights on the American continent. Together with the Inter-American Court on Human Rights, it forms the Inter-American System for the Protection of Human Rights, which is often the last hope for people and communities whose human rights have been violated and who have failed to find justice in their own country. The Commission called upon OAS Member States to provide funds promised for its operation, and to adopt “a historic and far-reaching decision, one that reflects the States’ commitment to the defense of human rights in the region” at the General Assembly in June. In response to this urgent situation, the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), the Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos (APRODEH) from Peru and Justiça Global from Brazil, stated: “The imminent loss of nearly half the Commission’s staff is a serious threat to human rights in the region and reflects the lack of political will of Member States to support the Inter-American Commission’s mandate. “Thousands of victims of human rights violations in the hemisphere have placed their trust and their last hopes for justice in the Commission. This is the case for people poisoned by heavy metals in La Oroya, Peru, as well as for communities that have lost their way of life due to the Belo Monte Dam in Brazil. Both groups have cases long pending before the Commission, and bravely continue to seek justice for the violation of their rights. “By not properly financing an organization that they themselves created, the States are establishing another obstacle for these people in their search for justice. “We call on Member States of the OAS to make a voluntary emergency contribution that will allow the Commission to keep its staff, make its planned visits, and undertake the hearings planned for July and October. “The States of the region have a responsibility to the Inter-American System. It is our hope that they honor it, not through speeches and resolutions filled with good intentions, but with concrete actions and immediate financing.”
Read more
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
Mexico protects loggerhead turtles from the Don Diego mine
AIDA celebrates SEMARNAT’s decision to deny the environmental authorization of a marine phosphate mine proposed for Ulloa Bay, Baja California Sur. They found the measures the operating company presented to safeguard sea turtles are based on inconsistent information. Mexico City, Mexico. The Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT) placed the protection of the loggerhead turtle, a threatened species, above the economic benefit of the Don Diego marine phosphate mine, proposed for Ulloa Bay in Baja California Sur. The environmental authority denied the authorization of the project proposed by Exploraciones Oceánicas after finding that the measures presented by the company for protecting loggerheads are based on inconsistent information. The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) applauds SEMARNAT’s decision, which states that the economic benefits of the project “cannot prevail over the protection of the natural resources of Ulloa Bay,” especially when some of those, like the loggerhead turtle (Caretta Caretta), “are threatened species subject to strict standards of protection.” According to the Secretariat, it’s not easy to harmonize the safeguarding of sea turtle populations with an activity “that adds to existing anthropogenic pressure (resulting from human activity) in the area and increases the risk of extinction of the species, which is internationally recognized” (pg. 232 of SEMARNAT’s decision). AIDA presented arguments to SEMARNAT about the international obligations that Mexico would breach upon authorizing the project, as well as the insufficient information with which the company evaluated the environmental impact of the mine on marine ecosystems, and on which mitigation measures were based. According to the Secretariat, Exploraciones Oceánicas proposed a program for the monitoring of sea turtles that could better be described as one of “rescue,” which is not based on quantitative data of the loggerhead habitat. In addition, the company did not present prevention and mitigation measures to guarantee the availability of sufficient food, and its model for restoration of the seabed—which it seeks to dredge to extract phosphate—does not take into account the particular characteristics of Ulloa Bay (pgs. 225 and 226). SEMARNAT relied upon international standards to deny Don Diego’s environmental authorization. They drew upon Mexico’s obligations to protect its marine environment and to use the best possible scientific information in the protection of sea turtles, contained, respectively, in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (CONVEMAR) and the Inter- American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles (CIT). More information 10 Things You Should Know About Don Diego
Read more
AIDA statement on the signing of the Paris Accord
AIDA celebrates the first step toward the construction of a new planet. New York, USA. Today, on Earth Day, in the headquarters of the United Nations, the Paris Agreement opens for signatures. The signing of the accord by Member States of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change is necessary to enable the treaty to quickly enter into force. The agreement lays out actions the world must implement to tackle climate change, the greatest threat humanity faces. The following is a statement by AIDA co-directors Astrid Puentes Riaño and Anna Cederstav: “Today we celebrate the historic signing of the Paris Agreement, a vital step and a new beginning in humanity’s efforts to tackle climate change. This accord, and its immediate signing and ratification by all nations, brings hope to our planet and for future generations. We recognize that the Agreement is not perfect, but we understand the complexity of nearly 200 countries reaching consensus on sensitive issues. The agreement is therefore a critical first step on the path toward ambitious and effective results. One of the Agreement’s noteworthy advances is the recognition that all climate actions must take into account and respect human rights and the rights of indigenous peoples, while also ensuring gender and intergenerational equality and a just transition of the workforce. The Agreement also recognizes the large gap that exists between the commitments made by States and the urgent measures needed to avoid catastrophic consequences, including the need for increased climate finance. We therefore hope that the celebration, speeches and official photographs will translate into prompt and effective action that goes beyond the agreements made in Paris last December. The Paris Agreement reflects a paradigm shift that is both necessary and possible. For Latin America and the Caribbean, highly affected and vulnerable regions, the Agreement presents a unique opportunity to achieve low-carbon development that prioritizes the protection of communities, people and ecosystems. AIDA has participated in the climate negotiations for many years as a Latin American voice. It makes us proud that our efforts, alongside those of the countless people and organizations with whom we’ve worked, have come to bear fruit. The signing of the Agreement today commits us to continuing our work to ensure compliance. Responding to climate change is everybody’s job, considering differentiated capabilities and responsibilities. States have an obligation to sign, ratify and immediately implement the Paris Agreement. International organizations, financial institutions and corporations must acknowledge their responsibility. And we, as individuals, must all examine our personal actions and how we can contribute to reducing climate change. Each and every contribution is essential to the adoption of real solutions that lead the way to a more just and sustainable world. The signing of the Paris Agreement today evidences important political will that must be translated, without delay, into concrete results. The most vulnerable and most severely affected countries cannot wait.”
Read more
New law banning mining in Colombia’s páramos could draw its first lawsuit
The new law that bans mining in Colombia’s páramos took years to materialize, and was the product of multiple activist campaigns, lawsuits, and pressure from civil society to preserve one of the world’s most sensitive ecosystems. Last month, Colombia’s Constitutional Court approved a law that has no precent. It bans mining and oil exploitation –effectively blocking 473 already-existing concessions– in the country’s páramos. The law is expected to impact more than 300 mining operations in 25 moorlands, according to data from the National Authority of Environmental Licenses (ANLA). One of those companies is the Canadian transnational, Eco Oro. Its Angostura mine is located within the Santurbán moorland, in the Norte de Santander and Santander departments, within an area larger than 142,000 hectares. Santurbán includes five regional parks and a variety of species in danger of extinction, such as the condor (Vultur gryphus), the chirriador (Cisttothorus apollinari), the moorland duck (Anas flavirostris) and the curí (Cavia porcellus). On its website, the company has announced that it is “developing a multi-million ounce gold-silver deposit in Colombia.” Eco Oro has already completed more than 350,000 meters of drilling and 3,000 meters of underground development, thanks to an investment by the International Financing Corporation of the World Bank. Juan Orduz, president of Eco Oro’s board of directors, said back in 2014 –before the law was approved– that the company “has invested more than 240 million dollars in the region.”“It’s no secret that we’ve had many challenges and that we will keep having them. There’s always a new source of conflict, and even then, we’re going to keep coming up with strategies to keep working in this area,” said Orduz back then, when the demarcations for mining in Colombia’s páramos were an issue of conflict. In a recent press release, Eco Oro announced that it has the option of bringing the dispute to international arbitration and seeking “monetary compensation for the damages suffered” due to the new anti-mining law. “Since the Angostura project got underway, it has been clear that páramos are constitutionally and legally protected and that this project could affect Santurbán, such that it might not be authorized,” said Carlos Lozano Acosta, an attorney with the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). “States should not be sanctioned for protecting their water sources, given that they are doing so in accordance with national and international obligations.” According to data from the Institute of Biological Research Alexander Von Humboldt, half of the world’s páramos are in Colombia and are the source of 70% of the fresh water in the country, besides being an ecosystem essential for mitigating climate change. Their importance is especially acute right now, since Colombia is facing the El Niño climate phenomenon and going through one of the worst droughts in its history. Eco Oro’s critics explain that five years ago, Colombia’s Environment Ministry had denied the Angostura mine its environmental license. And now, the decision of the Constitutional Court reaffirms that decision, “finding that the right to water and the protection of the páramos (moorlands) takes precedent over the economic interests of companies trying to develop mining projects in these ecosystems.” That’s according to Miguel Ramos, from the Water Defense Committee and the Páramo of Santurbán (El Comité por la Defensa del Agua y el Páramo de Santurbán). The Committee has presented a complaint about the Angostura mining project to The World Bank, and hopes to receive a response in the next few months.
Read more
Colombian court bans oil, gas and mining operations in paramos
Colombia’s Constitutional Court has ruled against a controversial legal loophole permitting oil, gas and mining operations in the country’s paramos - high altitude eco-systems. Colombia’s paramos are the most extensive on earth and supply more than 70% of the country’s population with water, according to the Bogota-based Alexander von Humboldt Institute. The loophole is in a June 2015 law implementing Colombia’s “National Development Plan 2014-2018.” The law prohibits “agricultural activities” and the “exploration for or exploitation of non-renewable natural resources”, as well as the “construction of oil and gas refineries”, in paramos, but then states that mining operations which have contracts and environmental licenses dating to before 9 February 2010, or oil and gas operations with contracts and licenses dating to before 16 June 2011, are exempted. This was challenged by four congressmen, three lawyers and 12 representatives from a coalition called the Cumbre Agraria, Campesina, Étnica y Popular, who argued that the loophole violates rights to the environment, water and Colombia’s patrimony because of the impacts oil, gas and mining operations would have on the paramos’ vegetation, soil, sub-soil and water. On 8 February the court’s ruling, which was made public on Thursday, deemed three paragraphs relating to the loophole in the June 2015 law “unconstitutional” - or “inexequible” in Colombian Spanish. “Paramo eco-systems exist in very few places in the world and Colombia is privileged to be the country that has the highest number of paramos globally,” senator Alberto Castillo, one of the plaintiffs, told the Guardian.“Because of this, we believe that the absolute ban on natural resource extraction that we now have in Colombia is of great magnitude and should delight the world.” “It’s a ruling that will make history,” says senator Iván Cepeda, another plaintiff. “The court went further than we hoped, without a doubt. [Mining and oil and gas operations in the paramos] is a serious abuse against natural resources, especially the fundamental right to water.” “The court’s ruling is a major advance in environmental matters,” Viviana Tacha, another plaintiff and an adviser to senator Castillo, told the Guardian. “No doubt about it, it’s a victory for the entire country and for the communities resisting the imposition of a development model based on natural resource extraction which fails to take into account the environment and local people. Given global concern about climate change, the protection of the paramos by the court is one of the most important recent decisions on environmental matters.” According to a communiqué by the court issued on 8 February, the offending three paragraphs “ignore the constitutional duty to protect areas of special ecological importance [and] put at risk the fundamental rights of the entire population to access good quality water.” The communiqué says the court arrived at its decision after “analyzing the state’s power to intervene in the economy and its duty to protect areas of special ecological importance, weighing them up against economic freedom and the rights of individuals to exploit the state’s resources.” It concluded that, in this case, the former overrides the latter for three reasons: 1) the current lack of protection of paramos; 2) the “fundamental role” played by paramos in regulating the country’s drinking water cycle and providing cheap, high-quality water to 70% of the population; and 3) the particular vulnerability of paramos due to their “relative isolation”, low temperatures and low oxygen levels. Carlos Lozano-Acosta, from the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), told the Guardian the court’s decision is “historic” and sets an example to other countries in the Andean region where there are paramos. “The paramos [in Colombia] are vital because they’re a source of drinking water for 70% of Colombians, strategic reserves of biodiversity, and carbon sequesters,” he says. “The court acknowledged all that in the sentence.” An ‘amicus brief’ sent to the court and written by Lozano-Acosta together with the Bogota-based NGO Asociación Ambiente y Sociedad (AAS) argued that the loophole contradicts Colombia’s constitution, international environmental law, and international treaties signed by Colombia, such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Ramsar Convention. NGO Dejusticia, also based in Bogota, is another civil society organisation which sent an ‘amicus brief’ to the court, calling the crucial three paragraphs an “unjustified regression” because mining, oil and gas operations in paramos had already been banned back in 2010 and 2011. “Before [the June 2015] law, such activities were prohibited,” the NGO stated in an interview in Colombian newspaper El Espectador. “This means that the current National Development Plan is a step backwards in protecting the paramos.” That “regression” was acknowledged by the court in its ruling, which described the offending paragraphs as “reestablishing the possibility” of oil, gas and mining operations in paramos despite them being “prohibited by Laws 1382 in 2010 and 1450 in 2011.” “The paramos are key ecosystems and water sources which are insufficiently protected,” Dejusticia’s Diana Rodriguez told the Guardian. “We’re thrilled the court has taken a stand for their immediate protection and sent a message that economic development cannot sacrifice respect for the environment.” Just how big an impact the court’s ruling could or will have isn’t immediately clear. How many oil, gas or mining operations stand to be affected? In its interview with El Espectador, Dejusticia stated that the National Mining Agency (NMA) believes approximately 500 mining titles covering over 140,000 hectares of the paramos have been issued, while senator Castillo told the Guardian the NMA states there are currently 448 mining titles in paramos - 347 of which have environmental licences. “Taking into account that this is official information, which the court itself recognized, other sources have no basis in speaking of lower numbers,” Castillo says. “The three companies who have most mining titles in the paramos are AngloGold Ashanti Colombia S.A., Eco Oro Minerales Corp and Leytah Colombia.” Senator Cepeda told the Guardian the 448 mining titles include 26 of Colombia’s 32 paramos and extend for more than 118,000 hectares, “more than 11,000 of which are [also] affected by four oil and gas projects.” According to one media report, Environment Minister Gabriel Vallejo has said he will request a clarification from the court and believes that “other sources” say up to 522 titles could be affected. “There are very different estimates about the number of titles and even more confusion related to how many have environmental licenses,” says Dejusticia’s Rodriguez. “Indeed, some mining companies didn’t wait for the [court’s] full ruling [and] already announced that they will forego their mining concessions in the paramos.” Another question is how far Colombia’s paramos extend. Although the court’s ruling cites a 2011 Humboldt Institute publication stating there are 1.9 million hectares in Colombia, Humboldt’s Carlos Sarmiento told the Guardian their current estimate is 2.9 million hectares - 2.5% of national territory. That 2.9 million figure is also used by the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development. But what if the government disagrees that certain areas really are paramos, and permits oil, gas or mining operations to take place there anyway? As the court’s ruling acknowledges, the paragraph immediately preceding the three offending paragraphs in the June 2015 law states that ultimately it is the Environment Ministry which, according to its own “technical, environmental, social and economic criteria”, is responsible for “delimiting” paramos. And that paragraph wasn’t challenged by the plaintiffs. “The court’s decision could result ineffective given that that part of Article 174 wasn’t part of the lawsuit and Congress has given the Environment Ministry the function of delimiting paramos, and in doing that the Ministry isn’t subject to the scientific criteria established by the Alexander von Humboldt Institute,” the court ruled. “It would be possible for the Ministry to not delimit paramos, or exclude from delimitation, certain areas where mining or hydrocarbon operations are happening or are going to happen. That would nullify [our] decision because such operations could take place in areas that have been scientifically classified as paramos, but the Ministry has excluded.” AIDA’s Lozano-Acosta says that risk exists “without a doubt.” “But the court also said that the government mustn’t ignore the Humboldt Institute’s technical recommendations,” he told the Guardian. For senator Castillo, that risk only exists “if the Ministry doesn’t closely read the court’s sentence or doesn’t want to comply with it.” “In the court’s words, delimitation must ensure the maximum degree of protection,” Castillo says. “This is absolutely crucial given that what the government wants to do is reduce to the utmost the extent of the paramos via a very restricted delimitation process and thereby pave the way for exploitation. Dispute will continue in the delimitation of each paramo, but we will continue in their defence and the court’s sentence gives us many tools to do so.” According to senator Cepeda, the court’s ruling will lead to a “profound discussion about how paramos are delimited.” He told the Guardian that the plaintiffs, together with environmental organisations and others, intend to ensure the government abides by the court’s ruling and “will seek the suspension of more than 400 mining titles.” AAS’s Margarita Florez says the court’s ruling cannot be appealed. “The decision is a constitutional sentence and therefore it is binding on the government and must be complied with,” she told the Guardian. “There is no way to appeal it.” The court’s ruling cites various definitions of paramos, including “the highest and most exposed regions of tropical Andean mountain ranges” and “neotropical mountains between the upper limit of forest vegetation (3,200-3,800 ms above sea level) and the lower limit of perpetual snows (4,400-4,700 ms) in Andean systems.” It quotes the Humboldt Institute describing them as “key sites that “harvest” rainfall and snow water stored in glacial lakes, bogs, marshes and peat soils” that are “held for a relatively long period of time and released constantly and slowly.”
Read moreBrazil mega-dam ‘disaster’ for tribes as it nears completion
Belo Monte hydroelectric plant is flouting agreements to protect indigenous communities as its builder seeks approval to start generating power, environmental lawyers have warned. The US$11 billion dam on an Amazonian tributary – set to be the third-largest producer of hydropower globally – has met just 30% of the social and environmental conditions set by government, said AIDA Americas. “It is clear that the conditions necessary for Norte Energia, the consortium in charge of the project, to receive the licence are not in place,” said a statement on Monday. The dam is 70% built. Brazil’s largest infrastructure work will divert the Xingu River, forcing the relocation of 2,000 families as pristine rainforest is flooded. Federal prosecutors have recommended the relocation be suspended. Environmental groups have petitioned the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to oppose the government’s granting of a license, on the basis it could destroy tribes’ means of survival. “Giving free rein of operation to the dam at this time would mean completely shutting down the options available to avoid major social and humanitarian disasters in the region,” said Sandy Faidherb of SDDH, a local activist group which filed on behalf of the affected communities. The government has said Belo Monte will supply Brazilians with clean energy and develop the country’s economy. The dam has been designed to minimise damage, and will flood less than half – 478 sq km in 28-mini reservoirs – of the area affected by the Brazil’s largest Itaipu hydroplant, the Guardian reported. That comes at a cost to power output, as not shutting off entirely the river means the plant will work on average at barely 40% of its 11,200 MW capacity. The Xingu River basin in Para state is a “living symbol of Brazil’s cultural and biological diversity,” home to 25,000 indigenous people from 40 ethnic groups,according to Amazon Watch. Wildlife populations have drastically declined at another dam, Balbina, built in the 1980s, after a 3,500-island archipelago slashed habitat to roam and exposed the likes of tortoises and gamebirds to wind and wildfires.
Read more