Press Center

September 23 2015 Coral reefs, Oceans

Nearly 37,000 people urge SEMARNAT to protect Mexico’s natural treasures

The Los Tuxtlas Biosphere Reserve and the Veracruz Reef System are at risk from the expansion of the Port of Veracruz, authorized by SEMARNAT. Signatures to protect the important natural sites were collected on a citizens’ petition at change.org/saveveracruz A coalition of organizations has alerted the Scientific Committee of the Inter-American Commission for the Protection of Sea Turtles of the threat the project poses to sea turtles. Yesterday civil society organizations delivered more than 36,000 signatures urging Mexico’s Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT) to revoke an environmental permit granted for the extraction of basaltic rock from Los Tuxtlas Biosphere Reserve for the expansion of the Port of Veracruz. The highly successful citizens’ petition was delivered to José Luis Juan Bravo Soto, the Director of Citizen Services at SEMARNAT, and David Gutiérrez Carbonell, the Director General of Conservation Development at CONANP. The authorization granted to the Port Authority of Veracruz by the government in June 2014 would increase the damage the port has historically cause to the surrounding coral reef ecosystem, and put in danger two of the most important natural treasures in Mexico: the Los Tuxtlas Biosphere Reserve and the Veracruz Reef System. The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), the Centro Mexicano de Derecho Ambiental, A.C. (CEMDA) and the organizations Resistencia Organizada por la Conservación Ambiental (La Roca) and the Asamblea Veracruzana de Iniciativas y Defensa Ambiental (LAVIDA) stated in a press conference that the Veracruz Reef System is already in grave danger due to SEMARNAT’s approval, without sufficient technical and scientific information, of a plan to modify the borders of the Veracruz Reef System National Park in order to expand the Port of Veracruz. Permission granted for the extraction of basaltic rock from Los Tuxtlas Biosphere Reserve for construction of the port’s new jetties conflicts with the Reserve’s management program, which expressly prohibits the use of explosives in the area. This region contains one of the last rainforests in Mexico, serves as a natural barrier against hurricanes and tropical storms, provides a refuge to millions of plant and animal species, and is home to many communities. In addition to actions taken so far, on September 22 AIDA and CEMDA presented a report before the Scientific Committee of the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles (IAC), detailing the direct and indirect impacts that the expansion of the Port of Veracruz would have on sea turtles and their habitat. The Veracruz Reef System is the largest coral ecosystem in the Gulf of Mexico. It works as a natural barrier against waves and storms; in 2010 it protected the city of Veracruz from Hurricane Karl. It is also home to a large variety of flora and fauna. The coasts of Veracruz, including the reef system, receive at different times of year five species of neotropical sea turtles. The Port Authority said in its environmental impact statement that the project “will never have a direct effect on protected species.” The statement, however, failed to provide protection measures for sea turtles, particularly for the hawksbill turtle, listed as a threatened species under both the Sea Turtle Convention and Mexican law. This species is found in the Veracruz Reef System National Park and has migration routes throughout the Gulf of Mexico. SEMARNAT authorized the expansion project in December 2013, without requiring a special management plan for the conservation of the hawksbill sea turtle. The authorization, therefore, runs contrary to the obligation of the Mexican government to promote the protection, conservation and recovery of sea turtle populations and the habitat on which they depend, particularly spawning and feeding grounds. It does nothing to restrict human activities that could affect the turtles, particularly during periods of breeding and incubation. The Veracruz Reef System was declared a Natural Protected Area in 1992 and was registered, in 2004, as a Wetland of International Importance in accordance with the characteristics established by the Ramsar Convention. The authorization granted by the environmental authority therefore contravenes national and international standards and does not properly consider the cumulative impacts that the project would have on the ecosystem. It also ignores the Mexican government’s responsibility to protect the biodiversity found within its territory, and disregards the National Biodiversity Strategy and provisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Sign the petition at: change.org/saveveracruz Photos of the delivery of signatures: http://www.cemda.org.mx/?p=4555

July 13 2015 Freshwater Sources, Human Rights, Indigenous Rights, Large Dams

Belo Monte Dam may begin operations despite noncompliance

The dam has failed to comply with conditions for the protection of the health, integrity and way of life of affected communities. Organizations reiterate the validity of the precautionary measures granted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in favor of the indigenous communities of the Xingú River basin, whose situation of risk has worsened. Altamira, Brazil & Washington, DC – The Belo Monte dam is applying for authorization to begin operations, with construction reported at 70 percent complete. This authorization may happen despite the fact that the project has failed to comply with conditions necessary to protect the health, integrity and way of life of affected communities, including the indigenous peoples of the Xingú river basin. Civil society organizations solicited the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights to maintain the precautionary measures granted in 2011 in favor of the indigenous peoples of the Xingú river basin. They did so as a response to the Brazilian government’s request that the Commission lift the measures, which were authorized to avoid irreparable damage to the rights of the communities. The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), Justiça Global, the Sociedad Paraense de Defensa de los Derechos Humanos (SDDH) and the Movimiento Xingú Vivo para Siempre (MXPVS) filed the brief on behalf of indigenous and river communities affected by Belo Monte. The organizations argued before the Commission that the social and environmental situation surrounding Belo Monte continues to be serious and urgent, and could cause irreparable damages. Their arguments are based on a recent report by the Socio-Environmental Institute of Brazil (ISA), as well as on official government data that include information from health and indigenous protection authorities and the Public Ministry. The ISA report analyzes in detail the situation of Altamira, Pará—the region where Belo Monte is being constructed—and emphasizes the human rights violations and irregularities of the project. The report warns that necessary conditions do not exist for the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) to grant the project’s operating license. If granted, the license would authorize the filling of the dam, and, thus, the final diversion of the Xingú River. One part of the dam would then begin operation. According to the ISA report, measures to avoid the project’s impacts on health, education and basic sanitation have not been met. This neglect will lead to further damage, such as the fracturing of indigenous communities, saturation of public health services, lower quality education, and greater forest degradation. “The consequences we announced years ago are now a reality,” said Astrid Puentes Riaño, co-director of AIDA. “The filling of the dam, scheduled for the year’s end, will cause the loss of homes and land, and the modification of the traditional lifestyles and livelihoods of Xingú communities. Brazilian authorities and the Commission must act effectively to prevent this disaster.” It is clear that the conditions necessary for Norte Energía, the consortium in charge of the project, to receive the license are not in place. The vice-governor of Pará explained that although the construction is 70 percent complete, only 30 percent of the social and environmental conditions have been met. Similarly, the Attorney of the Republic of Altamira, Thais Santi, said that the consortium is not respecting the protection plan for indigenous lands, the principal condition for the protection of the peoples of the Xingú. The decision on the authorization of Belo Monte must also take into account the recent corruption scandal that has engulfed the project. The investigation Lava Jato, which began a year ago, exposed a massive network of corruption involving the government and Brazil’s largest construction companies. A senior executive, currently in prison on corruption charges, mentioned in his declaration how they had set up and executed bribes for the construction of Belo Monte. The Comptroller General (CGU) thereafter decided to investigate the use of public funds in the project. “The lack of effective control in the execution of the project has made the consequences much worse than anticipated. Giving free reign 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.

July 10 2015

Green Climate Fund disappoints by accrediting unfit entities

During its 10th session, in a process characterized by little transparency, the Board of the Green Climate Fund accredited 13 entities to manage financing that the Fund authorizes for climate change adaptation and mitigation projects. The Board accredited the entities as a group, without carefully analyzing them one by one. They did not consider that some have been penalized for financing terrorism and laundering money, or that their primary lending portfolios support fossil fuels. Nor did they consider that some haven’t shown sufficient capacity to manage high-risk climate change projects that could cause irreparable environmental and social impacts. Some do not comply with international fiduciary standards to handle such activities. “We’re disappointed to see that the Green Climate Fund has demonstrated business-orientated behavior, no different from other financial institutions. This doesn’t help the Fund contribute to a paradigm shift and offer better access to resources for local actors,” said Andrea Rodríguez, a senior AIDA lawyer and civil society observer at the Board meetings. The decision-making process for the accreditation of the 13 entities lacked transparency, as no names of the candidates were known until the decision was made. Nevertheless, civil society organizations were able to obtain information to identify inappropriate backgrounds of some of the entities seeking accreditation, and asked the Board to decide on a case-by-case basis. They also requested that the Board assess evidence questioning the ability of these institutions to manage high-risk projects, and to ensure that only the best entities are accredited. The Board, however, opted to make a hasty decision. It reviewed the proposals in a closed Executive Session, and accredited all 13 entities together without considering their problematic histories. “By acting this way, the Board risks the reputation, credibility and legitimacy of the Green Climate Fund,” Rodríguez added. The Board should ensure that all entities seeking accreditation meet the same standards required for access to Fund resources. Developing countries depend on the integrity of accredited entities to ensure access to the financing they need to confront the increasingly severe effects of climate change. It remains vital that the Board guarantees transparency in its decision-making processes.

June 25 2015

Environmental organizations condemn attacks on the environment in Colombia

Bogota, Colombia. The undersigned environmental organizations condemn attacks on the environment made in the Colombian departments of Putumayo, Nariño, Arauca, Boyacá and Norte de Santander, which have been attributed to FARC-EP. According to media sources, attacks on oil infrastructure have caused environmental damage in the river basins of Tibú and Caunapí, among others, and in Bahia de Tumaco, affecting more than 84,000 people. These acts adversely impact local communities, the country and the environment on a global scale. Oil pollution in bodies of water seriously threatens the life and health of people, as well as the integrity of ecosystems and animal species. The undersigned organizations recall that international humanitarian law prohibits actors of armed conflict from engaging in environmental destruction unjustified by military needs, according to the principles of distinction and proportionality. Similarly, actors of armed conflict, when conducting hostilities, should refrain from undermining the human rights to water and a healthy environment. The organizations reaffirm that human rights and environmental law applicable in Colombia, as well as the government’s obligations in the field, are not suspended during periods of armed conflict. For all of these reasons, the undersigned environmental organizations call on FARC-EP to respect international humanitarian law and refrain from causing harm to the environment. They also reaffirm the necessity to exclude communities and ecosystems from armed conflict. Asociación Ambiente y Sociedad Asociación Interamericana para la Defensa del Ambiente (AIDA) Foro Nacional Ambiental Fundación Natura Klimaforum Latinoamérica Network (KLN) Red por la Justicia Ambiental en Colombia (RJAC)

June 18 2015

AIDA applauds Pope Francis’ recognition of urgent environmental challenges

The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) applauds Pope Francis’ new Encyclical, Laudato Si: On Care For Our Common Home, released today. In it, the Pope addresses the environmental challenges facing humanity, which must be urgently addressed in order to protect the earth “with which we share existence.” His Holiness highlights the recommendations of organizations, like AIDA, which we hope will finally be echoed in governments, international organizations, corporations, and by all the people of this planet. We all have a responsibility to act to protect our home. The encyclical is comprehensive and covers many important issues. We would like to emphasize the Pope’s recognition of the following: The work performed by organizations and individuals to protect the environment. We are grateful for his gesture, and feel honored and committed to continuing this hard work. That fact that “recent World Summits on the environment have not lived up to expectations because, due to lack of political will, they were unable to reach truly meaningful and effective global agreements on the environment.” He concludes, “Reducing greenhouse gases requires honesty, courage and responsibility, above all on the part of those countries which are more powerful and pollute the most.” Social inequality and the impact of environmental degradation, which worsens the misery of the poor, including migrants and indigenous communities. We therefore reiterate our call to protect Earth, taking into particular consideration solutions that address this inequality. The rich and complex biodiversity of the planet’s ecosystems, which must be preserved, as well as the human right to water, which “is essential to human survival and, as such, is a condition for the exercise of other human rights.” The Precautionary Principle as a tool to avoid serious and irreversible harm to the environment. With this Encyclical, Pope Francis joins other religious leaders who have made an urgent call for the adoption of immediate measures to protect the planet.

June 01 2015 Human Rights, Indigenous Rights

Independent report finds Dutch and German Development Banks failed to comply with environmental and human rights standards in financing the Barro Blanco Dam in Panama

Indigenous communities and civil society shocked by the banks’ inadequate response to the findings. Kiad, Panama/Amsterdam/Bogota – Last Friday, a long-awaited report by an independent panel found that FMO and DEG, the Dutch and German development banks, violated their own policies by failing to adequately assess the risks to indigenous rights and the environment before approving a US$50 million loan to GENISA, the developer of the Barro Blanco hydroelectric project in Panama. FMO and DEG’s response to the findings, while acknowledging some deficiencies in their assessment, does not commit to any measures to address the outstanding policy violations. Even while the report concludes that “the lenders have not taken the resistance of the affected communities seriously enough,” it appears that FMO and DEG continue to do so. In May 2014, the Movimiento 10 de Abril (M-10), representing indigenous peoples directly affected by the project, with the support of Both ENDS and SOMO, filed the first complaint to the Independent Complaints Mechanism (ICM) of the FMO and DEG. The complaint alleges that the Barro Blanco dam will affect part of the Ngöbe-Buglé indigenous territory, flooding their homes, schools, and religious, archaeological, and cultural sites. Despite national and international human rights obligations, the Panamanian government, GENISA and the banks failed to obtain the free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) of the Ngöbe-Buglé before the project was approved. The ICM found that the “lenders should have sought greater clarity on whether there was consent to the project from the appropriate indigenous authorities prior to project approval.” “We did not give our consent to this project before it was approved, and it does not have our consent today,” said Manolo Miranda, a representative of the M-10. “We demand that the government, GENISA, and the banks respect our rights and stop this project.” The ICM found that “while the [loan] agreement was reached prior to significant construction, significant issues related to social and environmental impact and, in particular, issues related to the rights of indigenous peoples were not completely assessed prior to the [loan] agreement.” The banks’ failure to identify the potential impacts of the project led to a subsequent failure to require their client to take any action to mitigate those impacts. The environmental and social action plan (ESAP) appended to the loan agreement “contains no provision on land acquisition and resettlement and nothing on biodiversity and natural resources management. Neither does it contain any reference to issues related to cultural heritage.” “This failure constitutes a violation of international standards regarding the obligation to elaborate adequate and comprehensive Environmental and Social Impact Assessments before implementing any development project, in order to guarantee the right to free, prior and informed consent, information and effective participation of the potentially affected community”, explained Ana María Mondragón, lawyer at the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). While FMO and DEG acknowledged in their official response to the ICM’s report that they “were not fully appraised at credit approval,” they made no further concrete commitments to ensure that the rights of those affected by the dam will be respected. The banks claim that they are “facing limitations in their influence” over government processes to come to a satisfactory agreement with all stakeholders involved. Their actions, however, reveal a different story. In February, the Panamanian government provisionally suspended construction of the Barro Blanco dam. Subsequent to the suspension, the government convened a dialogue table with the Ngöbe-Buglé, with the facilitation of the United Nations, to discuss the future of the project. Rather than supporting the Government of Panama to respect the rights of the Ngöbe-Buglé, FMO and DEG have requested that Panama’s environmental authority reconsider the suspension and allow their client to resume construction. In February, they sent a letter to the Vice President of Panama, expressing their “great concern and consternation” about the suspension and noting that it “may weigh upon future investment decisions, and harm the flow of long-term investments into Panama.” While the banks asserted that their consultants found nothing that would warrant the suspension of the project, they failed to mention that their own independent accountability mechanism was undertaking an investigation of the project. Indeed, by that time, the banks had already seen a draft of the ICM’s report with findings that the project was not in compliance with its own policies. “We were surprised to find out about the role of the banks in influencing the national process, as this is in contradiction to their assertions that they are not in a position to intervene in national decision-making.” said Anouk Franck, senior policy advisor at Both ENDS, based in Amsterdam. “They should now show their commitment in coming to a solution and start taking FPIC seriously, in the case of Barro Blanco, where due to delays in tackling the issue, the banks might need to accept losses on their loan. And they need to find ways to assure themselves FPIC is obtained where relevant, for example through human rights impact assessments.” The handling of the complaint was a lengthy and at times frustrating process. GENISA refused to cooperate with the ICM and provide them with access to project documents, leading the banks to conclude a secret side agreement with GENISA. The secret side agreement superseded the publicly available procedures of the ICM and allowed GENISA to review the draft and final investigation reports before they were shared with complainants. “FMO and DEG are more concerned with protecting the interests of their client than they are with protecting the rights of those affected by the projects they finance,” said Kris Genovese, senior researcher at the Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO). “It’s a tragic irony that banks asked the consent of the company to publish the ICM’s investigation report, but didn't ask consent of Ngöbe-Buglé for the project.” The Barro Blanco project was registered under the Clean Development Mechanism, a system under the Kyoto Protocol that allows the crediting of emission reductions from greenhouse gas abatement projects in developing countries. “As climate finance flows are expected to flow through various channels in the future, the lessons of Barro Blanco must be taken very seriously. To prevent that future climate mitigation projects have negative impacts, a strong institutional safeguard system that respects all human rights is required,” said Pierre-Jean Brasier, network coordinator at Carbon Market Watch. “The opportunity to establish such a necessary safeguards system is now, ahead of the Paris agreement, to put the respect of human rights on top of the UNFCCC agenda.” The ICM will monitor the banks’ implementation of corrective actions and recommendations. Meanwhile, the M10 expect FMO and DEG to withdrawal their investment from the project and ask that the Dutch and German governments show a public commitment to ensuring the rights of the affected Ngöbe-Buglé. At the same time, the banks should refrain from putting pressure on the Panamanian government.

May 15 2015 Freshwater Sources, Toxic Pollution

AIDA celebrates historic decision to suspend fumigation with glyphosate in Colombia

AIDA calls on the National Environmental Licensing Agency to immediately cancel the permit authorizing the chemical spraying program. Thanks to more than 24,000 people who signed a petition on Change.org to suspend fumigation and to colleagues and organizations that participated in the campaign. Bogota, Colombia. The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) welcomes the Colombian government’s decision to suspend the aerial spraying of coca and poppy crops with glyphosate in the country. To implement this decision, the National Environmental Licensing Agency must rule immediately and cancel the permit granted to the chemical spraying program. "This is a historic moment for health, the environment, and respect for law in Colombia," said Astrid Puentes Riaño, Co-Director of AIDA. "We know it was a complex decision, but in light of a policy that has proved ineffective and caused serious damage, it was also a smart decision to change course and find real solutions." AIDA has followed the Illicit Crop Eradication Program in Colombia since the late 1990s. We have repeatedly decried the serious damage to health and the environment caused by the glyphosate mixture applied in Colombia, and advocated more appropriate alternatives to eradicate coca and poppy crops. The decision to suspend the spraying, made last night by the National Narcotics Council with an overwhelming majority of seven votes to one, will become effective if the National Environmental Licensing Agency revokes the permit authorizing the program. AIDA believes that the permit should be canceled immediately because the program was designed to use glyphosate, and without it the program no longer makes sense. One day before the decision, AIDA delivered a petition to suspend the spraying, with more than 24,000 signatures, to the Minister of Justice, who also chairs the Narcotics Council. The petition, posted on Change.org, was sponsored by AIDA in conjunction with the Institute for Studies of Development and Peace (INDEPAZ) and the Observatory of Crops and Growers Declared Illicit, with support from Washington Office on Latin America and Latin American Working Group. In one week the petition received 24,933 signatures. "We thank everyone who signed and those who for years have requested this change in policy; this is a shared achievement," said Hector Herrera, AIDA attorney and coordinator of the Environmental Justice Network in Colombia. "We look forward to creation of a technical committee to make recommendations and hope that it is participatory and transparent." The suspension of the fumigation program followed a finding, issued by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, that glyphosate may be carcinogenic. This finding led the Ministry of Health to recommended suspending the program, which Colombia’s Constitutional Court and other national courts had unsuccessfully requested years before, citing the precautionary principle. This principle, found in international environmental law, was incorporated into Colombian legislation in 1993. It holds that in the absence of scientific certainty, when a risk of serious or irreversible health or environmental damage may be present, the authorities should take steps to avoid that risk. In the case of spraying, the requirements for applying the precautionary principle are met. Although there is no absolute scientific certainty of causal harm, more than 15 years of evidence points to possible serious and irreversible damage to health and the environment, including risk of cancer and skin diseases, damage to amphibians and fish, and damage to forests and food crops. The Colombian government, for the sake of caution, finally suspended spraying to prevent further damage.

May 14 2015

More than 20,000 petition Colombia to stop aerial spraying of herbicides

Less than 24 hours before the National Narcotics Council decides whether to suspend the spraying, organizations deliver a citizens’ petition seeking a halt to social and environmental damages. Bogota, Colombia. A coalition of nongovernmental organizations delivered a petition with more than 20,000 signatures to the Ministry of Justice today, urging a stop to widespread aerial spraying of glyphosate and other harmful chemicals over large swaths of land in Colombia with the objective of eradicating coca and poppy crops. The petition highlights the need to protect the environment and human health from damages caused by the spraying, which is done over forests, homes, farms and water sources. Organizations sponsoring the petition, which was posted on the website Change.org, include the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), the Institute for Development and Peace Studies (INDEPAZ), the Observatory of Crops Declared Illicit, the Washington Office on Latin America, and Latin American Working Group. “In just a few days we received more than 20,000 signatures saying ‘no’ to the fumigation, not only with glyphosate, but with any herbicide used as an instrument in the war against drugs,” said Camilo González, Colombia’s former Minister of Health. The National Narcotics Council, chaired by the Ministry of Justice, will meet today to decide whether or not to suspend the spraying. “The Council should make its decision on the basis of law, considering scientific and technical evidence about the harmful impacts of spraying and the lack of desired results,” concluded Hector Herrera, attorney for AIDA and coordinator of the Environmental Justice Network of Colombia. Alongside sponsoring organizations, the signers of the petition emphasize that the spraying should come to an end because it: Causes serious health impacts: The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer determined that glyphosate may cause cancer in humans. Independent studies have also documented other serious health effects from the spraying, such as skin diseases and problems during pregnancy. Has not achieved its objective: Over more than 15 years, the spraying has failed to reduce the cultivation of coca and poppy crops for illicit use. Causes serious environmental impacts: Spraying has been done indiscriminately over homes, farms and water sources. As a consequence, it has damaged biodiverse ecosystems and the species that live in them (fish, amphibians, rodents, insects, and endemic plants), polluted water, destroyed forests, and damaged food crops, a source of subsistence for many communities. Displaces people: Having no alternatives to coca and poppy cultivation, entire families have left their land because of the spraying. Ignores national and international socio-environmental standards: National tribunals such as the Constitutional Court have requested the suspension of spraying based on the precautionary principle. Colombia compensated Ecuador for the damages the spraying has caused along the border, and promised to suspend the practice in that region. National and international experts explained these and other reasons to halt the aerial spraying program in a seminar today at the Center for Memory, Peace and Reconciliation in Bogota. “For 40 years, the spraying of pesticides has been the subject of academic, scientific and legal analysis, which, though recommending the end of their application, have not always been public. These analyses have been dominated by politics of security and public order, but have left out health, environmental and legal recommendations. This approach has denied the existence of the socio-economic problems that persist in communities where crops are grown; it has denied the importance of recognizing the human rights of rural communities; and it has not recognized the new approach recommended by the United Nations Development Program to contain the expansion of illicit crops,” explained Pedro Arenas, coordinator of the Observatory of Crops Declared Illicit, who moderated the discussion group. The Ministry of Health, the provincial and district secretaries of Health, the Ombudsman, and the Attorney General’s Office, among other authorities, agree with the thousands of people who signed the petition and the organizations that have promoted it. The petition is still open for signatures! Sign Here: chn.ge/1zPK74G!

May 13 2015

IFC boosts investment in contested Canadian mining project in Colombia despite ongoing investigation

Washington, DC – On April 24, more than 50,000 Colombians took to the streets in Bucaramanga in a march to defend their primary water source from the development of Eco Oro Minerals’ Angostura gold project and other proposed mining activities. Despite broad public opposition and an ongoing investigation into an earlier investment decision, the private lending arm of the World Bank, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), bought more shares in Eco Oro Minerals in February. The IFC’s original decision in 2009 to invest in Eco Oro is the subject of an ongoing investigation by the World Bank’s Compliance Advisor Ombudsman about whether its social and environmental sustainability policies were violated. In February, without waiting for a decision on the ongoing investigation, the IFC purchased an additional 390,000 shares in Eco Oro Minerals for a total investment of US$18.4 million. Members of the Committee for the Defense of Water and the Santurbán Páramo brought the original complaint to the CAO in June 2012 and have decried the fact that mining is illegal within the páramo. "This mining project and the others that it stimulates in the area will put the drinking water of millions of us at risk. We have clearly stated that we want the IFC to divest, not reinvest," remarked Carlos Lozano Acosta, attorney at the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). The Santurbán Páramo is a high altitude wetland ecosystem that provides water for approximately 2 million people in the region. "This new investment is irresponsible. The IFC needs to learn from the past; investments in mining have led to violent conflict and human rights violations throughout Latin America, stated Carla Garcia Zendejas, Program Director at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL). “Given that there is an open investigation, at a minimum the IFC should wait for their own compliance office to determine if their original investment in the mine violated their own policies before making any further decisions" Garcia Zendejas said. Violence has already taken place in the area of Eco Oro operations. The complaint presented to the CAO alleges that the IFC glossed over potential security issues related to the Angostura project. It includes documented evidence of violence associated with guerrilla and paramilitary activity following a major military operation and the establishment of military installations in the area around 2003. “The IFC is investing in conflict and lending legitimacy to an activity that downstream communities and organizations have clearly opposed out of concern for their future well-being. The IFC should start listening to the Colombian people and withdraw,” commented Jen Moore, Latin America Program Coordinator for MiningWatch Canada.

May 07 2015

Organizations ask for immediate suspension of aerial fumigations of glyphosate and other chemicals in Colombia

A citizen petition was released by the website Change.org addressed to President Juan Manuel Santos and the National Narcotics Council. It requested that such fumigations are suspended because they damage the environment, human health and may cause cancer. Bogota, Colombia. The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), with the help of the Institute for Development and Peace Studies (INDEPAZ) and the Observatory of Crops Declared Illicit, launched a citizen petition today open to signatures through the website Change.org to request that president Juan Manuel Santos and the National Narcotics Council suspend aerial spraying of illicit crops using glyphosate and other harmful chemicals. "Independent scientific studies show that the fumigations are inefficient and have not reduced coca and poppy crops. To the contrary, they have contributed to the destruction of forests and affected populations, including ethnic groups. Recently, the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization (WHO) determined that the glyphosate usedin in spraying may cause cancer in humans," says Astrid Puentes Riaño, AIDA Co-Executive Director who signed the petition. The National Narcotics Council will meet on May 14 to address the issue and decide whether to suspend the spraying. In the case of Colombia, this practice is carried out on a mass scale, through aerial spraying and uses a concentration of glyphosate higher than that used commercially. In addition, the spraying occurs indiscriminately over houses, farms and water sources. On April 24 and based on the determination of the WHO, the Ministry of Health recommended the National Narcotics Council immediately suspend aerial spraying of glyphosate, which was introduced to the country more than 15 years ago with funding from the United States Government. In the past, high courts in the country such as the Constitutional Court have also solicited the suspension of the spraying, but these provisions have not been met. This issue reached the International Court of Justice when Ecuador sued Colombia for impacts of the fumigations in the border area. The Colombian government compensated the neighboring country and pledged to stop spraying along the border. Apart from damage to health, the fumigations impact ecosystems rich in biodiversity and the species that inhabit them, pollute water and destroy food crops that are a source of subsistence for indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities and small farmers.