Press Center

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.

April 29 2015 Freshwater Sources, Toxic Pollution

Colombian government must immediately suspend the use of glyphosate

Bogota, Colombia. Glyphosate, the herbicide used to eradicate crops considered illicit in Colombia, has been classified as a substance probably carcinogenic to humans by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the specialized cancer agency of the World Health Organization. Based on these findings, the Colombian Ministry of Health is recommending that the country’s Ministry of Justice "immediately suspend the use of glyphosate in the Illicit Crops Eradication Program’s aerial spraying operations." The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) strongly supports this recommendation so that the human rights to health and a healthy environment, both closely linked to the right to life, are protected in Colombia. We urge the government to fulfill its national and international obligations, respecting the conclusions reached by the highest health authorities, in order to prevent further damage to the country’s people and environment. For 15 years, AIDA and partner organizations have been warning of the grave impacts glyphosate has on the environment and human health. We’ve advocated for the need to apply the precautionary principle to suspend Colombia’s fumigation program, which has been financed by the government of the United States. Astrid Puentes Riaño, attorney and co-director of AIDA: "Colombia, like no other country, has used millions of liters of glyphosate that have not succeeded in destroying coca and poppy plants, but have irreparably damaged the environment and human health. Without excuses or delays, the National Narcotics Council must act responsibly and immediately suspend the use of glyphosate in the eradication of illicit crops." Anna Cederstav, co-director of AIDA and PhD in Chemistry: "The scientific evidence on the impacts of glyphosate on the environment and human health is sufficient to support a decision of the suspension of aerial spraying of glyphosate in Colombia."

April 28 2015

Citizens' petition urges Mexican government to revoke authorizations set to harm protected areas

Petition open for signatures on Change.org requests that CONANP and SEMARNAT stop the pending use of explosives in Los Tuxtlas rainforest reserve, and avoid the destruction of the country’s largest coral ecosystem, the Veracruz Reef System. Mexico City, Mexico. Along the Eastern Coast of Mexico, two of the greatest natural treasures in the state of Veracruz are at grave risk from the government-sanctioned expansion of the Port of Veracruz. In response to the shortsighted permission granted by Mexico's Secretary of the Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT), the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), CEMDA and other civil society organizations have joined together to support a citizens' petition requesting the authorizations be revoked and the country's natural heritage be protected. The petition, launched today on Change.org,[1] urges SEMARNAT to revoke the environmental permit granted to the Port Authority to mine basaltic rock in Los Tuxtlas Biosphere Reserve. It also asks the National Commission of Natural Protected Areas to increase protection of the Veracruz Reef System by adding it to the Montreux Record, a register of sites on the List of Wetlands of International Importance. Registering the Veracruz Reef would allow Mexico access to financial resources to help preserve it. The government authorized the extraction of two million cubic meters of basaltic rock to build the port’s new breakwater. The Los Tuxtlas Management Plan expressly prohibits the use of explosives within the Reserve, but the project requires them to release the rock. The noise and presence of workers will disrupt the habitual behavior of the reserve’s fauna, including the endangered Mexican howler monkey. Removal of rock from Los Tuxtlas will irreversibly alter the topography, vegetation and ecosystem services of the area, in addition to contravening the purposes of the Reserve. It would also increase the region’s vulnerability to climatic events such as tropical storms and hurricanes. To accommodate the port’s new footprint, the government shrunk the surface area of the protected Reef System without sufficient scientific information to understand the impact it would have.[2] The change allows the port to be built on a previously protected area of the reef. This action violates national and international standards and ignores the cumulative impacts that the project will have on the fragile ecosystem due to, among other things, increases in population and maritime traffic. The authorization granted by the Secretary of the Environment and Natural Resources would permit the construction of two breakwalls with a combined length of 7,740 meters, a main basin 800 meters in diameter, nine types of terminal docks, and 30 berths for boats. In total, the proposed enlargement of the Port of Veracruz covers an area of about 910 hectares, double the current size of the port. The removal, fragmentation and siltation of the coral reefs of the Veracruz Reef System and the disappearance of land reclaimed by the sea will irreversibly damage the health of the entirety of Mexico’s most resilient coral ecosystem. The Veracruz Reef System consists of at least 23 coral reefs of varying sizes, shapes and depth. Within its boundaries live coral ecosystems, subtidal seagrass beds, shallow marine waters, mangroves and sandy beaches. In 1992 the government declared it a Natural Protected Area, and in 2002 it was registered as a Wetland of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention, an intergovernmental treaty. The national park is the habitat of sea creatures such as dolphins and sea turtles. As a rich marine ecosystem, it supports abundant fisheries, and its incredible beauty draws sport and tourism to its shores. The coral reefs within are important climate regulators, and serve as a natural barrier against large waves and storms. In 2010, the reef protected the city of Veracruz from Hurricane Karl, a dangerous Category 4 storm.[3] For the great benefits these natural ecosystems provide, the Conserve Veracruz campaign is asking for the signatures and support of citizens around the world to urge the Mexican government to revoke the port’s environmental permit, and instead to fulfill its primary responsibility of protecting Mexico’s rich natural heritage. [1] https://www.change.org/p/semarnat-protect-the-coral-reefs-and-jungle-of-veracruz [2] The federal government issued a new decree removing protection from the Punta Gorda and Bahia Vergara reefs. [3] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA), United States Department of Commerce, available at: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/podcast/feb10/dd022410transcript.html

April 14 2015 Oceans, Mining

Don Diego mining project poses grave risk to Mexican marine ecosystem

AIDA’s formal comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the phosphate-mining project, proposed in a Baja California Sur bay, point to insufficient information about safeguards for the ecosystem, which is vital for both coastal communities and endangered species. Mexico City, Mexico. The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) has commented on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Don Diego phosphate-mining project in Ulloa Bay, Baja California Sur. In their analysis, AIDA proved that the document lacks sufficient technical information to ensure that the project will not seriously damage the Bay. Ulloa Bay serves as an important marine ecosystem for coastal communities as well as for endangered species like the Blue and Humpback whales and the Loggerhead turtle. The Mexican Center for Environmental Law (CEMDA) presented the comments in AIDA’s name to Mexico’s Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT). "The comments show that the Don Diego project, the first of its type in the region, could cause serious environmental damage," said Haydée Rodríguez, an AIDA attorney. The primary reasons the project should not be authorized as presented are: The project could cause irreversible damage to an ecologically vulnerable and biodiverse region, which includes Magdalena Bay, a mangrove ecosystem considered a Marine Region of Importance. The region is also home both to threatened marine species and to others vital to the fishing industry. The Environmental Impact Statement lacks important information about possible impacts on the marine ecosystem and measures to avoid them. The project involves a mining process that will greatly alter the marine environment: large boats will dredge the seabed and extract sand in search of phosphate, but in doing so may also extract living organisms. The project will alter the marine ecosystem by unearthing sediments that contain toxic elements, such as uranium, that will be returned to the ocean after processing. The exposed toxic sediments, along with the dredging and noise of the mining operation, will alter the habitat of endangered species of whales and turtles. The Mexican government has national and international obligations to apply the Precautionary Principle. As such, they should deny permission to the project to ensure that it does not cause serious and irreversible environmental damage. In authorizing the project, the Mexican government would violate international treaties that require it to protect marine environments and threatened and endangered species. The project puts at risk fishing and tourism activities that provide the livelihoods of the region’s coastal communities. You can see our full comments on the Don Diego Environmental Impact Statement here (in Spanish).