Press Center

April 07 2014 Freshwater Sources, Toxic Pollution

Colombia’s Ministry of Environment unveils the demarcation of the Santurbán Páramo without specifying details of the measurements

With the water supply of millions of people at risk, we urge the ministry to publish details of the demarcation and ensure that this fragile ecosystem remains free of large-scale mining operations. Bogotá, Colombia. Colombia’s Ministry of Environment announced the delimitation of the Santurbán Páramo, a high-altitude wetland ecosystem that supplies water to millions of people in the country. While the ministry disclosed some aspects of the measure to the media, it has not released full details. These include the full extension of the demarcation, exact coordinates and which mining operations are inside or outside of the defined area. The ministry stated that the protected area would increase from 11,000 hectares to 42,000 hectares in the department of Santander. However, according to the Colombian Humboldt Institute’s atlas, the ecosystem has a surface area of at least 82,000 hectares in the departments of Santander and North Santander. “We do not know if the protected area covers the total area of the páramo in both departments. Nor do we know the coordinates or what mining titles will be affected. We do not even know if there is a written draft of the official decision. This seems incompatible with the right to access accurate and impartial information, as enshrined in the Colombian Constitution,” said lawyer Carlos Lozano-Acosta of the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). The páramo of Santurbán supply water to nearly two million people, including the cities of Bucaramanga and Cúcuta. As is common for this ecosystem, the páramo of Santurbán has a diversity of flora and fauna and is important for storage of atmospheric carbon, helping to mitigate climate change effects. According to the law, the demarcation of this ecosystem should be formally and clearly defined in order to prevent harmful activities such as large-scale mining, which could cause irreversible damage. According to the Ministry, companies with mining concessions and environmental licenses will remain in Santurbán. The ministry said that the demarcation affects only 10 of 29 mining titles, including those of the Canadian firm Eco Oro Minerals. It did not provide any further details. Without the exact coordinates of the ecosystem, it is not possible to know precisely the extent of the demarcation and the ongoing threat that large-scale mining poses to this water source. Eco Oro has threatened to pursue legal action if the final decision affects their investment, presumably basing its arguments on the free trade agreement between Colombia and Canada that would allow the company to sue Colombia in an international tribunal. “Colombians should not pay a company for investing where it should not, much less if it threatens their water supplies. Colombian law prohibits mining in páramos. We call on Eco Oro to respect Colombians’ right to water instead of threatening legal action to protect their investment,” said Jennifer Moore of MiningWatch Canada. Kristen Genovese of the Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO) said, “Eco Oro is not only violating Colombian law with regard to mining in the páramo, but the project is inconsistent with the social and environmental standards of the International Finance Corporation (IFC), which is financing the project. We believe that an investigation now underway regarding the IFC’s investment in Eco Oro will confirm our analysis.” According to the Ministry, the decision will not be adopted immediately, and no date has been set to implement it. “The participation of citizens in the demarcation process has not been adequate. We do not know, for example, if the Ministry used rigorous technical studies provided by the Humboldt Institute. Nor is much known about how public participation took place regarding this decision,” said Miguel Ramos of the Committee for the Defense of Water and the Santurbán Páramo. Also unknown is how Andean forest ecosystems, or cloud forests, located at altitudes of 2,200 to 2,600 meters above sea level, will be protected and managed. These are also vital to ecosystem health and water regulation. Similar to Eco Oro’s approach in Santurbán, the mining company AUX plans to carry out underground mining in these ecosystems. To date, more than 19,000 people have signed a petition (in Spanish) urging the Colombian government to protect the water of Santurbán according to scientific criteria. The government received (in Spanish) 16,000 of those signatures in November 2013. Organizations and environmentalists have also asked (in Spanish) the Colombian government to properly define the limits of the páramo ecosystem. The demarcation of Santurbán will set a precedent for protecting the country’s other páramos. Colombia is home to half of the páramos in the world, which supply water to 85% of its population. The demarcation process must take into account the minimum projected area of the páramo in the Humboldt Institute’s Atlas and its technical studies at a scale of 1:25:000. “If the Santurbán Páramo is adequately defined, it would set an important precedent for the protection of all the páramos. This would lead the way, taking another step toward respecting the right to water of all Colombians” said Carla Garcia Zendejas of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL). AIDA, CIEL, the Committee for the Defense of Water and the Santurbán Páramo, MiningWatch Canada and SOMO -- as allied organizations -- ask Eco Oro to refrain from threats of legal action in an attempt to influence the demarcation of the páramo, and ask the Colombian government to provide full, truthful, and impartial information about the process and final decision.

March 25 2014

Brazilian judicial abuses questioned on anniversary of military coup

Human rights commission hears case questioning state use of dictatorship-era legal device. Washington, D.C. Marking the 50th anniversary of Brazil’s military coup, Brazilian community representatives and their legal advocates questioned President Dilma Rousseff’s administration at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) over its flagrant use of a legal mechanism that dates to the country’s dictatorship (1964-1985). The speakers argued that the law allows for Brazil’s chief justices to arbitrarily overturn legal decisions that protect the environment and rights of indigenous and traditional peoples who are threatened by powerful economic interests. Known as “Security Suspension” (“Suspensão de Segurança”), this legal artifice permits the federal government to request the suspension of judicial decisions based on supposed threats to national security and the country’s “social and economic order”. The device has notably been used to suspend lawsuits that favor the indigenous right to free, prior and informed consent, allowing for notorious projects such as the Belo Monte hydroelectric dam to proceed in violation of the Brazilian Constitution and international conventions. Decisions based on “Security Suspension” may not be overturned until the final phase of court appeals, effectively blocking due process of the law and paving the way for controversial mega-projects to proceed as fait accompli. Indigenous leader Josias Munduruku, who represents one of the Amazon’s largest remaining tribes, traveled to the hearing to denounce Brazil’s plans to construct a complex of mega-dam projects on the Tapajos river and its tributaries, which threaten to bring devastating impacts on their lands and livelihood. “We are suffering the consequences of the dams that are being built on five of our rivers,” said Josias. “Federal prosecutors filed a lawsuit to stop the Tapajós dams, but the government overruled the court’s decision using Security Suspension, allowing the projects to continue in spite of the fact that we were not consulted.” Federal judge Célia Bernardes mirrored these concerns, speaking on behalf of the Brazilian Association of Judges for Democracy, whose decision on the lack of prior consultations of the Munduruku and other indigenous peoples was overturned by “Security Suspension”, permitting controversial dam projects to proceed in violation of the law. During the hearing, representatives of the Brazilian government argued that Security Suspension has been used only to defend the public interest, including that of indigenous peoples. However, there was no mention of the specific cases raised by the delegates. Judge Célia Bernardes countered the government’s point, stating: “Security Suspension differs from other legal tools as it permits the chief justice of a regional court to override rulings based on exclusively political and economic arguments, without considering judicial opinions.” “Employing broad and subjective criteria, Security Suspension violates the American Convention on Human Rights and destroys any chance for the effective protection of human rights in the Brazilian legal system," said Alexandre Andrade Sampaio, a lawyer with the Inter-American Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). “Security Suspension is in flagrant violation of the rights to due process and access to justice, specifically cited in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention." “Security Suspension is a dire remnant of Brazil’s military dictatorship that prevents the judiciary to act independently and impartially," affirmed Edward Baker, a lawyer with Global Justice. "When it comes to mega-projects that are directly linked to state policy for economic growth, the Brazilian judicial system has been used in order to deny, or simply disregard, the rights of the affected populations." The hearing before the IACHR the Organization of American States echoes another official complaint, made on March 10th at the 25th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, denouncing the Brazilian government’s systematic use of this legal instrument to the detriment of communities affected by mega-projects. The hearing was requested by the organizations Justiça Global, Justiça Nos Trilhos, the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), International Rivers, Terra de Direitos and the Sociedade Paraense de Defesa dos Direitos Humanos (SDDH). Download the civil society document presented in the hearing (in Portuguese). Watch the video of the hearing (Spanish/Portuguese).

March 24 2014 Large Dams, Indigenous Rights, Human Rights

Organizations alert the United Nations that construction of the Las Cruces hydropower plant will violate human rights in Nayarit, Mexico

UN Special Rapporteurs are asked to urge the Mexican government to guarantee the rights of indigenous peoples and coastal communities that would be affected by the project. Mexico City. The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) has sent an urgent appeal to several United Nations Special Rapporteurs showing that construction of the Las Cruces hydropower plant will violate the human rights of communities in western Mexico. The project will affect coastal communities as well as the Cora, Tepehuano, Huichol and Mexicanero indigenous peoples along the San Pedro Mezquital river basin in the state of Nayarit. We sent the appeal to Special Rapporteurs on the issues of adequate housing, indigenous rights, extreme poverty as well as the rights to food, safe drinking water and sanitation and to the Independent Expert on the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment. We filed the appeal on the behalf of economic, environmental and community organizations in areas that would be affected by the project. These include the Inter-Community Council of the San Pedro River, the Náyeri Indigenous Council, the Nayarit Riverside Federation, Nuiwari, the Mexican Center for Environmental Law (CEMDA), the Ecological Mangrove Group, SuMar and representatives of the town of Boca Camichín. In the appeal, we asked the Special Rapporteurs to urge the Mexican government “to guarantee the rights of the indigenous peoples and coastal communities of the San Pedro Mezquital river to information and participation, consultation and consent, as well as to food, clean water and sanitation, and to the right to enjoy a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment.” We also asked the UN experts to visit the site of the proposed hydropower project to find out first hand the damages it will cause on the environment and human rights. The project will affect indigenous lands – mostly those of the Coras – by forcibly evicting inhabitants and damaging sacred sites. This would violate the human rights to adequate housing, water and livelihoods as well as to culture and education. “Our lands and natural resources are the most important aspects of our culture," said Julián López Cánare, coordinator of the Náyeri Indigenous Council and a member of the Intercommunity Council of the San Pedro River. “Every day we fear that our sacred sites will be flooded or damaged.” Ernesto Bolado, director of SuMar, said the appeal to the UN is a demonstration of how the Cora, Huichol, Tepehuana and Mexicanera communities were never consulted on the project as required by Convention 169 of the International Labour Organization (ILO). What is more, consent for the expropriation of land and changing its use was requested at community assemblies under false pretenses, the promise of government benefits and even with bullying. Mexico’s state-owned electric utility Comisión Federal de Electricidad plans to build and operate the Las Cruces hydropower dam on the San Pedro Mezquital river at a location 65 km north of the city of Tepic, Nayarit. The plant will have 240 MW of installed capacity generated by three turbines fed by water from a 188-meter high dam holding a reservoir measuring 5,349 hectares. The project will operate only four months a year at regular output, and it will meeting 0.9% of the energy demand of the West Central Mexico in 2026, equivalent to 0.28% of the total installed capacity in the country[1]. “The urgent appeal is a request for United Nations Rapporteurs to investigate the facts concerning the full enjoyment of human rights of the people and communities that will be affected by the hydroelectric project," said AIDA attorney Sandra Moguel. The environmental assessment report for Las Cruces acknowledges that the project will lead to the substitution of agriculture and small-scale livestock ranching for a dependence on fishing in the reservoir. “It is unthinkable to convert subsistence farmers into fishermen or tour operators,” said Marcos Moreno, an oyster farmer in Boca Camichín and a member of the Intercommunity Council of the San Pedro River. You can read the alert sent to the UN Special Rapporteurs (in Spanish). [1] Las Cruces Environmental Impact Assessment, Chapter II, pages 4-12, 18, 19 and 77.

February 21 2014 Fracking, Indigenous Rights

Indigenous leader condemns Brazil’s rights abuses at United Nations

Speakers highlight violations stemming from Amazon dams at Human Rights Council. Geneva, Switzerland. In a groundbreaking event at the 25th United Nations Human Rights Council, the national coordinator of Brazil’s Association of Indigenous Peoples (APIB) Sônia Guajajara exposed an alarming disregard for indigenous peoples’ rights by the Brazilian government as it rushes to promote an unprecedented wave of large dam construction across the Amazon basin with devastating impacts on their territories and livelihoods. In her testimony, Ms. Guajajara argued that the violation of indigenous rights to prior consultations concerning the federal government’s dam-building plans has set a troubling precedent for the rule of law and the future of Brazil’s indigenous peoples. The side event, entitled ‘Indigenous peoples’ right to consultation on large dam projects in Brazil’, also featured Alexandre Andrade Sampaio, a Brazilian lawyer with the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), who critiqued the use of a legal mechanism known as “Security Suspension” (Suspensão de Segurança) that allows chief justices, upon request from the government, to indefinitely suspend legal rulings in favor of indigenous peoples’ rights. Among the most egregious use of this legal artifice that was originally created during Brazil’s military dictatorship, is the suspension of court decisions on the illegality of large hydroelectric dam projects, such as Belo Monte, where the federal government has failed to ensure indigenous peoples’ right to prior consultations, as enshrined in the Brazilian constitution. According to Sampaio, the Security Suspension also constitutes an obstacle to Brazil’s compliance with international agreements concerning free, prior, and informed consultation and consent (FPIC), including Convention 169 of the International Labor Organization ILO), ratified by the Brazilian Congress in 2002, and the 2007 UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). “The alliance of economic interests and political power represent a major crisis for the implementation of indigenous rights in today’s Brazil,” said Ms. Guajajara. “However, even if the government denies our rights, it cannot deny its responsibility to this convention.” “The Suspension of Security Violates Human rights. The very people that could dismiss it are the same ones who personally benefit from its existence,” said Mr. Sampaio. “That is why it is important for the international community to turn its eyes to this matter and request the Brazilian government adopt effective measures that lead to the respect of human rights.” Joint declarations were submitted to the UN General Assembly by a coalition of Brazilian and international groups, including NGO France Libertés. In discussing growing threats to indigenous rights, both documents highlight the Brazilian government’s plans to build a massive complex of up to 29 large dams along the Amazon’s Tapajós River and its tributaries in the next ten years. Lesser-known than the controversial Belo Monte project on the neighboring Xingu River, the Tapajós complex would provoke flooding and other devastating consequences for indigenous peoples and other traditional populations both upstream and downstream of planned dams, including elimination of migratory fish that are a dietary stable and a basis of local economies. The federal government’s rush to construct a series of large dams in the Tapajós region, in the absence of prior consultations with indigenous peoples, has led to growing protests from local tribes, such as the Munduruku, Kayabi and Apiaká people. “We are watching a dark history repeat itself on the rivers of the Amazon where Belo Monte’s tragedy threatens to be reproduced on the Tapajós,” said Christian Poirier of Amazon Watch. “While the Brazilian government claims to respect its indigenous peoples, it is in fact working to dismantle their rights to open their lands and rivers to unconstrained exploitation.” Prior to the side event the delegates met with Ambassador Regina Dunlop of Brazil’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations in order to present their grievances. While the Ambassador stated that the information would be more relevant if presented to government representatives in Brasilia, Ms. Guajajara and Mr. Sampaio countered that these criticisms are frequently ignored by government decision makers until problems are exposed in international forums, such as the United Nations. “Brazil’s reputation is at stake on this international stage,” said Sônia Guajajara. “We are here to bring visibility to the unacceptable prejudice and discrimination suffered by indigenous peoples and to demand that it stops.” The side event in Geneva was organized by France Liberté (Fondation Danielle Mitterand) with support from Amazon Watch and International Rivers.

January 15 2014 Human Rights, Indigenous Rights

Groups appeal to UN to halt imminent forced evictions of indigenous Ngöbe families

Appeal to the UN seeks to stop eviction of Panamanian community. Panama, Washington D.C., San Francisco, Lima. Environmental and human rights organizations submitted an urgent appeal to United Nations Special Rapporteurs on behalf of members of the indigenous Ngöbe community - the community faces imminent forced eviction from their land for the Barro Blanco hydroelectric dam project in western Panama. The eviction would force Ngöbe communities from their land, which provides their primary sources of food and water, means of subsistence, and culture. The urgent appeal, submitted by the Ngöbe organization Movimiento 10 de Abril para la Defensa del Rio Tabasará (M10) and three international NGOs, the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), and Earthjustice, asks the Special Rapporteurs to call upon the State of Panama to suspend the eviction process and dam construction until it complies with its obligations under international law. Given that the project is financed by the German and Dutch development banks (DEG and FMO, respectively) and the Central American Bank for Economic Integration (CABEI), the groups also urge the Special Rapporteurs to call on Germany, the Netherlands, and the member States of CABEI to suspend financing until each country has taken measures to remedy and prevent further violations of the Ngöbe's human rights. The forced evictions of the Ngöbe are the most recent threat arising from the Barro Blanco project. These evictions raise imminent violations of their human rights to adequate housing; property, including free, prior and informed consent; food, water and means of subsistence; culture; and education. "Our lands and natural resources are the most important aspects of our culture. Every day, we fear we will be forced from our home,"said Weni Bagama of the M10. The appeal highlights the fact that the Ngöbe were never consulted, nor gave consent to leave their land. "Panama must respect the rights of the Ngöbe indigenous peoples and refrain from evicting them. Executing these forced evictions will constitute a violation of international human rights law," said María José Veramendi Villa of AIDA. Also central to the appeal is the role of governments whose banks are funding the dam. "Under international law, States must ensure that their development banks do not finance projects that violate human rights, including extraterritorially. Forced eviction of the Ngöbe without their consent is reason enough to suspend financing of this project," said Abby Rubinson of Earthjustice. Barro Blanco's registration under the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is another point of concern. "Panama's failure to protect the Ngöbe from being forcibly displaced from their land without their consent casts serious doubt on the CDM's ability to ensure respect for human rights under international law," said Alyssa Johl of CIEL. "CDM projects must be designed and implemented in a manner that respects human rights obligations."

December 21 2013 Coral reefs, Oceans

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

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

November 21 2013

Mexico’s government is held internationally accountable for authorizing tourism infrastructure in the Gulf of California

The Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) called on Mexican authorities to respond by January 8, 2014 to a complaint of breaching environmental legislation in the permits for four mega resorts. Mexico City, Mexico. The Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) requested an explanation from the Mexican government for authorizing tourism projects in the Gulf of California. The international organization, established under the North American Free Trade Agreement, made the determination after reviewing a citizen petition submitted by Mexican and U.S. organizations[i] denouncing the systematic violation of Mexican environmental law in permits for the construction of four mega resorts that put at risk fragile coral reefs, mangroves and wetlands. The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) and Earthjustice filed the petition[ii] with the CEC in April on behalf of 11 Mexican and international organizations. In the petition, the four resort projects are presented as an example of how Mexico’s Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT) endorsed massive tourism infrastructure in the Gulf of California in violation of norms for environmental impact assessment, the protection of endangered species and the conservation of coastal ecosystems. The CEC Secretariat determined that the Mexican government has until January 8, 2014 to provide a response on why it issued the permits, specifically in relation to these aspects: use of the best available information, assessing the cumulative impacts and destruction of ecosystems, the lack of precautionary and preventive measures, and the omission of the power to suspend works. The CEC also requested information on the implementation of the resolutions and recommendations of the Ramsar Convention, an intergovernmental treaty for the protection of wetlands of international importance like those in the Gulf of California. “It is a breakthrough in national and international law because it recognizes these provisions as part of the implementation of the obligations in the international treaties ratified by Mexico,” said Sandra Moguel, an AIDA legal adviser. The Secretariat acknowledged, in particular, the resolutions adopted by the contracting parties to the Ramsar Convention, which establish standards for the environmental impact assessment and protection of wetlands. The Secretariat also acknowledged the recommendations of the Ramsar Missions that visited the Marismas Nacionales and Cabo Pulmo, concluding that large-scale tourism developments were not appropriate because of the vulnerability of these ecosystems[iii]. It asked Mexico to explain its failure to perform an environmental impact assessment in accordance with these provisions. “The CEC called for accountability from the Mexican government with respect to the abuse of discretion in considering technical reviews, as is the case with the Playa Espíritu project that lacked environmental viability according to the CONANP (National Commission on Protected Areas),” said Eduardo Nájera, director of COSTASALVAjE, one of the petitioning organizations. “It is urgent that the new administration of SEMARNAT doesn’t not make the same mistakes as their predecessors, and that it carry out a transparent and non-arbitrary environmental impact assessment, especially in the case of projects that could put in danger wetlands of priority international importance such as Marismas Nacionales, Cabo Pulmo and the Bahía de la Paz,” said Carlos Eduardo Simental, director of the Ecological Network for the Development of Esquinapa (REDES), another petitioner.Finally, Carolina Herrera, a Latin America specialist for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), said that she expects that once it receives Mexico’s response, “the CEC will elaborate a detailed investigation of what happened in order to press Mexico to not relax its own environmental protection measures in favor of unsustainable coastal development.” See the CEC determination. [i] Ecological Network for the Development of Esquinapa (REDES), Friends for the Conservation of Cabo Pulmo (ACCP), Mexican Center for Environmental Defense, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), COSTASALVAjE, SUMAR, Niparajá Natural History Society, Los Cabos Coastkeeper, Alliance for the Sustainability of the Northwestern Coast (ALCOSTA), Greenpeace Mexico and AIDA. [ii] For more information about the citizen submission mechanism, please see this link. [iii] These missions are a technical assistance facility of Ramsar whose primary purpose is to assist parties that have wetlands meriting priority attention due to changing ecological characteristics.

November 14 2013 Freshwater Sources, Toxic Pollution

Almost 16,000 people urge Colombian President Santos to demarcate the Santurbán páramo

In a petition to the Presidency and the Ministry of Environment, thousands of people are calling on the government to define the boundaries of this fragile ecosystem at a scale of 1:25,000 as required by Colombian legislation. Bogota, Colombia—The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) sent to Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos and his minister of environment and sustainable development, Luz Helena Sarmiento, the signatures of 15,901 individuals calling for the demarcation of the Santurbán páramo to be based on proper scientific criteria at a scale of 1:25,000. The Santurbán páramo, located in the Colombian departments of Santander and Norte de Santander, provides water to nearly two million people, mainly in the cities of Bucaramanga and Cúcuta. The signatures collected over Change.org, the world’s largest petition platform, follow a previous request (in Spanish) by AIDA and prestigious Colombian environmentalists for the government to properly define the borders of the páramo in compliance with national legislation and international standards. This would prevent harmful activities such as large-scale mining from irreversibly damaging this fragile high-altitude wetland ecosystem. Páramos are "water factories" that contain a unique biodiversity and help mitigate climate change. In Colombia, home to the greatest number of páramos in the world, delimitation of this ecosystem is required under national law. That makes this petition even more important because the delimitation of the rest of the country’s páramos could depend on the outcome of the Santurbán decision. The petition promoted by AIDA includes a letter to President Santos and Minister Sarmiento. In the letter, the signatories call on the minister to recognize the entire páramo (more than 82,000 hectares) in the definition of its borders, not just the fraction (11,000 hectares) declared as a Regional Natural Park. For this to happen, the petition calls on the government to apply the parameters already established by Colombian scientists and provides legal arguments to support this requirement. Together with the signatures, AIDA has included a document that analyzes the legal reasons why the government should fully delimit this area (Available in Spanish, here). “Heeding the call of the thousands of signatories in the hemisphere is urgently needed because the risk to the páramos from mining is imminent," said Astrid Puentes Riaño, AIDA co-executive director. "Delineating Santurbán to a scale other than the ratio of 1:25,000 prescribed by the National Development Plan goes against the law. If the minister delimits the moor at a less detailed scale, the decision could be challenged in court.” AIDA's action comes as the Committee for the Defense of Santurbán Páramo holds a protest to protect this valuable ecosystem on November 15 in Bucaramanga. The petition and letter can be read at Change.org.

October 25 2013

Brazilian Federal Court rules for public scrutiny over BNDES loans

Unprecedented decision calls for transparency in use of taxpayer funds, critics say. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. A federal appeals court based in Rio de Janeiro (TRF-2) has ruled that the Brazilian National Development Bank (BNDES) must publicly disclose technical reports used for justifying approval of major loans. The court decision was provoked by a lawsuit filed in 2011 by Folha de São Paulo, one of Brazil’s largest newspapers, after BNDES refused a request for access to “analytical reports” produced by bank staff to appraise loans above BRL 100 million (USD 46 million) approved between January 2008 and March 2011. The reports analyze the situation of intended borrowers, justifications for bank financing and credit risks of proposed operations. Despite its status as a public financial institution, ultimately funded by Brazilian taxpayers, BNDES has refused to publicly disclose such documents, citing federal legislation on banking secrecy (Complementary Law no. 105/2001). Last year, a federal judge in Rio de Janeiro, Dario Ribeiro Machado Junior ruled partially in favor of the Folha de São Paulo lawsuit, authorizing public disclosure of reports on BNDES loans to public enterprises, but not on operations involving private companies. The newspaper appealed the decision to the TRF-2, calling for disclosure of all documents, while BNDES also appealed, demanding that all reports on loan operations remain secret. In a 2-1 decision last week, the appeals court determined that reports on BNDES loan operations requested by the Folha de São Paulo should be made public, except for “banking and fiscal information of borrowers”. It is expected that BNDES will appeal the court’s decision. In casting her vote, Judge Carmen Silvia Lima de Arruda of TRF-2 concluded that the Folha de São Paulo possesses a Constitutional right, supported by a previous Supreme Court decision, to request public disclosure of BNDES documents that illustrate criteria for loan approval. Arruda’s decision argues that “in reality, BNDES does not publicize any data relevant to the analysis carried out by its technical departments concerning the opportunity and convenience of loans that have been contracted. The absence of publicity regarding such criteria in the operations of BNDES reveals a system of planned obscurity”. In a similar vein, fellow judge Guilherme Couto de Castro of TRF-2 voted that BNDES documents concerning its loan operations are “essential and of unquestionable public interest; there should be no impediments to the disclosure of such data”. The judge also argued that an unstated goal of BNDES, in denying public access to loan documents, is to avoid disclosure of “favors granted to the friends of the king”. Such mistrust reflects a growing controversy over a marked tendency within BNDES to favor a select group of powerful Brazilian multinational corporate actors in its lending portfolio, while failing to publicly disclose justifications for loan approval and credit risks. A particularly notorious example involves mining and oil tycoon Eike Batista, a so-called ‘national champion’ of the Lula and Rousseff administrations, that was the recipient of BRL 10.4 billion (USD 4.175 billion) in low-interest loans. Once Brazil's wealthiest individual, Batista dramatically fell from grace in 2013 when a series of high-risk business ventures failed to produce high returns promised by the billionaire causing widespread alarm that BNDES had no effective system for managing risks associated with its loans. The TRF-2 decision benefitted from a legal opinion provided by the Federal Public Prosecutors’ Office (Ministério Público Federal - MPF). In a document signed by federal prosecutor Luis Pereira Claudio Leiva, MPF argued that transparency is an essential element of BNDES’ operations, given that it is a public financial institution funded by Brazilian taxpayers that should be financing projects in the public interest. "The performance of BNDES deserves severe criticism due to its manipulation by political interests, with fuzzy criteria that reach the extreme of complacency in the face of defaults by borrowers and concessionaires," he said. “This ruling is a victory for transparency. The bank uses taxpayer money to back some of the riskiest loans in Brazil and abroad, and the costs of so many of these investments end up being shouldered by the public” said Brazilian lawyer Maíra Irigaray Castro, of Amazon Watch. “BNDES must open its books to the Brazilian public. That’s the only way to guarantee that taxpayer funds are used correctly.” In November 2011, the Brazilian Congress passed a bill on public access to information (Federal Law 12.527/2011) within the context of a voluntary multilateral initiative known as Open Government Partnership[1] which allows individuals to request information from government institutions that must be disclosed unless a clear justification can be provided on the need for confidentiality. Civil society organizations have long lobbied for transparency regarding BNDES loans in Brazil and elsewhere – claiming that the public has the right to scrutinize the bank's use of capital obtained from the country’s taxpayers. Particular attention has focused on controversial projects such as the Belo Monte mega-dam complex in the Brazilian Amazon, generously financed through a record-breaking loan package of BRL 25.5 billion (USD 11.6 billion). Despite the new legislation, BNDES has repeatedly denied requests for access to information on key aspects of its loans operations, such as analysis of social, environmental and economic risks. “This decision (of TRF-2) is a positive sign from the Brazilian judiciary that represents a small and important step for human rights protection and accountability of BNDES operations. The bank’s investments in large-scale development projects, such as Belo Monte and other large dams in the Amazon, have had serious impacts on the human rights of communities and on the environment.” said María José Veramendi from AIDA. “Belo Monte, for example, has precautionary measures from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights because of the lack of protection of indigenous communities that are impacted.” Lack of transparency linked to deficient social and environmental safeguards In February 2012, the federal environmental agency, IBAMA, fined Norte Energia, S.A. a public-private consortium that holds the concession for the Belo Monte dam complex, a total for BRL $7 million for failing to implement required actions to mitigate the social and environmental impacts of the project, as stipulated in licenses granted in 2010 and 2011. The fine, which is under appeal at IBAMA, apparently provoked no concrete action from BNDES to address non-compliance with environmental legislation. During the implementation of BNDES-funded projects, monitoring of human rights and environmental legislation, including compliance with other specific loan conditions, has been notoriously deficient, critics say. When violations have been documented, BNDES has typically failed to take corrective action, including suspension of loan disbursements, unless environmental licenses themselves are suspended by IBAMA or court decision. According to Brent Millikan from International Rivers, suspension of environmental licenses is highly unlikely, given the high levels of political intervention within IBAMA and the judicial system. The number of civil lawsuits filed against BNDES-funded projects for violations of the rights of affected communities, labor legislation at construction sites and environmental legislation has become the focus of increasing attention in Brazil. A just-released study by investigative journals Agência Pública and O ECO identified a total of 80 lawsuits filed by state and federal Public Prosecutors against 17 of 20 large infrastructure projects financed by BNDES in the Brazilian Amazon between 2008 and 2012. According to the report, the most common motivations for lawsuits include defective environmental impact assessments, lack of prior consultations with affected communities as legally mandated, non-compliance with conditions of environmental licenses and violations of workers’ rights at dam sites, including unsafe conditions contributing to accidental deaths. The’ champion’ among infrastructure projects under litigation was Belo Monte, with 21 lawsuits filed over more than a decade. In September, the Federal Public Prosecutor`s Office (MPF) filed a lawsuit that included BNDES as a co-defendant with Norte Energia and IBAMA, citing a chronic failure to assess and mitigate impacts of Belo Monte on the Xikrin indigenous people that live near the dam site on the Xingu River. Further information Read the press release from the Ministério Público Federal on the TRF-2 decision (in Portuguese). Read the article in Folha de São Paulo on their lawsuit demanding transparency at BNDES (in Portuguese). See article on the Folha de São Paulo lawsuit against BNDES with link to the TRF-2 decision (in Portuguese). http://www.migalhas.com.br/Quentes/17,MI188278,101048-Inexiste+sigilo+bancario+em+relatorios+de+financiamento+produzidos Read the Bloomberg story “Batista Collapse Has Prosecutors at BNDES's Door”. See the article by investigative journalists on civil action lawsuits filed against BNDES-funded infrastructure projects in the Brazilian Amazon (in Portuguese). See MPF press release on new lawsuit against violations of Xikrin indigenous rights and environmental legislation at Belo Monte, including BNDES as a co-defendant (in Portuguese). [1] http://www.opengovpartnership.org/

September 11 2013 Large Dams, Freshwater Sources, Human Rights

Indigenous rights controversies around Belo Monte consume Brazilian judicial system

Dam license could be suspended due to violations of social and environmental conditions. Altamira, Brazil. Recent lawsuits by Brazil’s Federal Public Prosecutors (MPF) concerning the Belo Monte dam are demanding accountability from the dam-building Norte Energia consortium, Brazil’s National Development Bank (BNDES), and the state environmental agency IBAMA for noncompliance with mandated mitigation measures concerning the Juruna and Xikrin Kayapó, two indigenous groups affected by the mega-project. The lawsuits demonstrate that conditions placed upon the dam’s environmental licensing have not been met and call for compensation for socio-environmental impacts of the dam, currently under construction on the Xingu River in the Brazilian Amazon. The MPF filed a lawsuit in late August showing that Norte Energia was deliberately reneging its obligation to purchase land and provide health services for the Juruna indigenous community Km 17, one of the most vulnerable to the impacts of Belo Monte’s construction due to its proximity to the constant movement of heavy machinery and workers. This lawsuit led the national indigenous foundation FUNAI to issue a complaint to IBAMA, demanding that Norte Energia be held accountable for noncompliance with this formal condition of the environmental licenses for Belo Monte. The Federal Court of Pará State responded this week by giving Norte Energia 60 days to purchase the Juruna land and deliver health care or face daily fines of R$200,000 (US$87,000). “The situation here has only gotten worse,” said Sheyla Juruna, a member of the Km 17 community known for her local and international activism in defense of her community’s rights. “Belo Monte created the illusion that people would get everything they didn’t have. That’s when the problems began. Support from FUNAI never came and our health conditions are precarious. Civil society thinks that the indigenous have rights, yet our rights are being violated every day.” Following the ruling in favor of the Juruna community the MPF filed another lawsuit targeting the neglect of BNDES, IBAMA, and Norte Energia stemming from the absence of prior analysis of impacts and associated compensation measures for Xikrin Kayapó communities that are also threatened by Belo Monte. The lawsuit charges that these three institutions violated the rights of the Xikrin Kayapó when they allowed construction to commence on the project without measuring the impacts it would cause to the indigenous group, whose villages are based on the Bacajá River, a tributary to the Xingu directly adjacent to the dam’s most serious impacts. The MPF has asked the Judiciary to suspend Belo Monte’s installation license, paralyzing the project until Norte Energia can present findings on the project’s impacts and its corresponding compensations for indigenous communities. The lawsuit is unprecedented in its scope as it could force the consortium and BNDES, financier of 80% of the dam’s costs, to indemnify affected indigenous groups of the Xingu for the delay in measuring and mitigating its socio-environmental repercussions. “We truly have reason to celebrate seeing BNDES is finally being charged as a responsible party in Belo Monte’s disastrous impacts,” said Maíra Irigaray Castro of Amazon Watch. “It is time for financiers to pay for the criminal negligence exemplified by noncompliance with conditionalities, which they should also be monitoring for all projects that they finance.” Norte Energia’s failure to comply with Belo Monte’s legally mandated conditions is not new. IBAMA released a report in July confirming that the compliance has worsened as the dam’s construction has sped up. The report shows that only four out of 23 conditions concerning local urban populations have been met. “Last week we had a meeting with representatives of the government and local people and their discontent is clear,” said Antonia Melo, coordinator of the Xingu Alive Forever Movement. “There is no fresh water, no electricity, no health care, no schools and no sanitation. We cannot accept that the conditions, that are fundamental rights guaranteed by our constitution, be undermined in this way. IBAMA must suspend construction, as defined by law, until these conditions are met.” “These legal actions add to the existing evidence of the severe impacts that the Belo Monte dam is having on human rights and the environment in the Xingu, and of the responsibility of all Brazilian agencies involved in the project,” said María José Veramendi of AIDA. “We look forward to a positive result of these legal actions and that Brazil will effectively comply with applicable national and international laws, as all agencies involved can be legally responsible and the State can be internationally responsible for these human rights violations” pointed out Veramendi. Per FUNAI’s request, as well as the lawsuits brought by the Public Prosecutors, both IBAMA and the Federal Judges could suspend the dam’s installation license until all the requirements and conditions are met. “The characterization of Amazonian dams as clean and cheap energy is based on the ability of project proponents, including BNDES, to “externalize” their true social and environmental risks and impacts. These lawsuits are significant in that they’re sending a signal that they are indeed being held accountable for their decisions and the damage that they cause to the environment and indigenous peoples,” said Brent Millikan, Amazon Program Director at International Rivers.