Press Center
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."
Read moreMexican 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.
Read moreMexico’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.
Read moreAlmost 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.
Read moreBrazilian 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/
Read moreIndigenous 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.
Read moreGroups support challenge to dam project in Panama for violating indigenous rights
Amicus brief highlights unlawful consultation process. Mexico City, Mexico – Civil society organizations filed an amicus brief yesterday in Panama’s Supreme Court of Justice in support of a challenge by indigenous people to the environmental review of the Barro Blanco hydroelectric dam. Supporting a lawsuit filed by the Environmental Advocacy Center, Panamá (CIAM), the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and Earthjustice argue that the Panamanian government violated international law by approving the project without adequately consulting or obtaining the free, prior and informed consent of the affected Ngӓbe-Buglé indigenous peoples, and without adequately reviewing the environmental impacts to their lands. “Our lands and natural resources are the most important aspects of our culture, and we wish to thank the international organizations that are supporting our struggle to protect them,” said Goejet Miranda, President of a Ngäbe community movement to defend the Tabasará River from development projects. Once completed, the dam is projected to flood homes and religious, archaeological and cultural sites in the Ngӓbe-Buglé territories. The Barro Blanco dam will transform the Tabasará River from a vibrant source of food and water into a stagnant lake ecosystem, and will lead to the forced relocation of several families. Following a visit with indigenous communities in Panama last month, U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples James Anaya concluded that the government should have ensured adequate consultation with the Ngäbe people before authorizing the project. “Indigenous people have special protections under international law,” said CIEL senior attorney Alyssa Johl. “And in the case of Barro Blanco, Panama violated international law by ignoring the Ngäbe peoples’ rights to consultation and to free, prior and informed consent, which require states to ensure that indigenous peoples are actively engaged in, and take ownership of, decisions that affect their lives and livelihoods.” The amicus supports CIAM’s lawsuit seeking to nullify the resolution that approved the project’s environmental impact assessment (EIA) and to suspend construction of the dam until an adequate EIA has been conducted. “Given Panama’s international human rights obligations,” explained AIDAsenior attorney María José Veramendi, “we expect that the Court will rule in favor of the affected Ngäbe people, strengthening the protection of indigenous communities with respect to development projects in Panamá and contributing to the development of a strong and coherent jurisprudence on the issues of human rights and the environment in the region.” The Barro Blanco project has also received criticism related to its registration under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), a carbon-offsetting scheme established under the Kyoto Protocol. In theory, the CDM – with its dual objectives of reducing carbon emissions and achieving sustainable development – could be a valuable tool in the fight against climate change. However, among other problems, the CDM fails to ensure that its projects do not violate human rights. “Mechanisms to address climate change should do more than provide economic benefit for the companies developing the projects,” said Earthjustice attorney Abby Rubinson. “They must ensure protection of human rights and equitable solutions on the ground.” For more information view the amicus brief here.
Read moreMéxico failed to attend the Green Climate Fund’s fourth Board meeting
Senator Ernesto Cordero, Mexico’s representative on the Board, must be held accountable for his failure to attend a key event for establishing financial support for fighting climate change. Mexico City, Mexico. Senator Ernesto Cordero, Mexico’s representative on the Green Climate Fund (GCF) Board, missed the fourth meeting of the entity, held June 25-28 in Songdo, South Korea. At the meeting, Board members started setting the rules of operation of the Fund, a financial mechanism essential for developing countries to secure the financial support needed to combat climate change. According to the GCF Secretariat, Cordero’s absence was because he had to attend important sessions of the Mexican Congress. Also missing at the Songdo meeting was Chile, the alternate member for Mexico. Chile’s representative also informed the Secretariat of his inability to attend the event. With the absence of both of these countries, one of the seats held by Latin America on the GCF Board was left empty. The Board consists of 24 members: 12 representatives from developing countries and an equal number from developed nations. Each member has an alternate who may participate in the Board meetings without voting rights unless they assume the role of the Board member. Latin America has three seats on the Board, broken down by regional groups: Colombia is paired up with Peru, Belize with Cuba, and Mexico and Chile. Each pair also represents other countries. In this regard, Mexico and Chile’s absence from the fourth meeting jeopardizes the interests of the Latin American countries represented by the duo, which includes Brazil and Argentina. It also contradicts the active role Mexico has played in recent years in climate change negotiations worldwide. What is more, a good opportunity was missed to influence the decisions taken in South Korea. The Fund is being developed to become a main source of financial resources to combat climate change, and at this Board meeting critical decisions were taken to this end. These included decisions on the Fund’s mission, the results and performance indicators to follow, procedures for access, home ownership, financial instruments, structure and organization, among others. The formation of the Green Climate Fund must meet the needs of all regions, but especially those in Latin America. Mexico, Chile and the other countries with a seat on the Board must commit to be active and efficient participants, and to be consistent with their national policies on climate change. It is of utmost importance to ensure the involvement of Latin American governments in international spheres like the GCF because this will ensure effective benefits for the people of this region. For more information on the Green Climate Fund, visit this page.
Read moreWorld Bank investment in Eco Oro Minerals in Colombia to be audited
Decision supports complainants’ arguments that the International Financial Corporation did not adequately evaluate the environmental and social impacts of company’s project in Colombia. Washington/Bogota/Ottawa. The Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO), the independent complaints office of the International Financial Corporation (IFC), will carry out an audit of the IFC’s decision to purchase US$18.2 million in shares of Eco Oro Minerals (previously Greystar Resources). The Canadian company is proposing to develop the Angostura gold mine project in the high altitude wetlands – known as páramos – of Santurbán, located in the Colombian departments of Santander and North Santander. The decision comes in response to a complaint presented in June 2012 by the Committee for the Defense of Water and Páramo of Santurbán with support from the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and MiningWatch Canada. The complainants argue that the investment did not comply with the social and environmental sustainability policies of the IFC, an arm of the World Bank Group. “We welcome the decision of the CAO to move forward with an audit. This adds to our arguments regarding the unviability of the Angostura project in Santurbán,” stated Miguel Ramos lawyer and member of the Committee for the Defense of Water and Páramo of Santurbán. “If the CAO concludes that the project fails to comply and will not comply with the standards, the IFC should sell its shares in the company.” The IFC recognized that páramo, high altitude wetlands, provide fresh water and habitat for endemic species and species in danger of extinction, such as the Andean bear and the Andean condor. They are also essential ecosystems for climate change mitigation. Colombian and international law prohibit mining in páramos. As a result, in May 2011, the Colombian Ministry of the Environment denied Eco Oro’s petition for an environmental license for the project, initially designed as an open-pit mine and now proposed as an underground operation. “Whether this project is designed as an open-pit or underground mine, we believe that it will cause irreparable damages to an ecosystem that is essential for Colombia and for the region given its high biodiversity, importance to mitigate climate change and as a source of fresh water for two million people,” said Astrid Puentes, Co-Executive Director of AIDA. “It should simply not be implemented.” The CAO’s investigation will focus on whether the evaluation of social and environmental risks was adequate, particularly considering the long-term and cumulative risks. “The IFC invested in order to stimulate the mining sector in Colombia without necessary information about potential impacts, whether of Eco Oro’s project or of the development of a mining district in the area of Santurbán, which has been affected by the armed conflict and where some 70,000 hectares have been concessioned to various companies since Eco Oro arrived,” remarked Jen Moore, Latin American Program Coordinator for MiningWatch Canada. “The decision reveals an irresponsible and unmanageable policy.” The CAO’s decision comes two weeks after it similarly decided to carry out an audit of a copper mine in Peru. In this latter case, the IFC bought shares in the project at an early phase in the project without evaluating the impacts. “From our perspective, by continuing with these sorts of investments, the IFC would fail to comply with its standards. It’s a highly worrisome trend,” concluded Kris Genovese, Senior Attorney at CIEL. The organizations that presented the complaint hope that the result of the CAO’s investigation will be comprehensive and will fundamentally question the current policy of the IFC to stimulate large scale mining through acquisition of equity holdings in exploration mining companies, known as junior firms. See a pdf version of the CAO’s report.
Read moreUN Representative on Indigenous Peoples asked to investigate human rights violations caused by Panama’s Barro Blanco dam
Washington, DC, United States. A total of 12 civil society organizations urged the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, James Anaya, to conduct a formal investigation into the human rights impacts of the Barro Blanco dam located on the Tabasará River in Panama. The Panamanian and international organizations also asked Mr. Anaya to call on the government of Panama to immediately halt the dam’s construction until the threats to the rights of the indigenous Ngӓbe people affected by the project have been fully addressed. The Barro Blanco controversy received special attention at the UN climate talks held last week in Bonn, Germany, because the project is registered under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), a carbon offsetting scheme established under the Kyoto Protocol. “The Barro Blanco dam will directly affect Ngӓbe people, yet we were not even consulted about the project before it was approved,” said Weni Bagama, an indigenous Ngӓbe leader of the Movimiento 10 de Abril, a community-based movement defending the Tabasará River from development projects. In September 2012, the UN Development Programme (UNDP) conducted a fact-finding mission at the project site and interviewed Ngäbe community members about projected impacts. UNDP’s assessment report confirmed that the dam will flood homes and religious, historical and cultural sites in the Ngӓbe-Buglé territory. The report further documented the project’s impacts, including that the dam will convert the flowing Tabasará River into a stagnant lake ecosystem, affecting the Ngäbe’s diet and means of subsistence. “Despite proof that the dam will have grave impacts on the Ngӓbe way of life and cultural heritage, the construction of the dam continues,” added Ms. Bagama. “We urge Mr. Anaya to investigate the situation and do all he can to protect the rights of the indigenous peoples affected by this project.” “The public forum where the project was discussed was held as a community meeting without a clear notification of its true objective, and there was no representation from the affected indigenous communities,” said Tania Arosemena, Legal Director of the Environmental Advocacy Center, Panama (CIAM by its Spanish initials). “The consultation process did not comply with the minimum standards demanded by national and international law on this matter.” CIAM filed a lawsuit in 2011 on behalf of members of the Ngäbe communities, who challenge the approval of the project’s environmental impact assessment. That suit is pending. Several of the organizations that wrote to Mr. Anaya also raised the Barro Blanco case at the UN climate talks in Bonn last week. “The Barro Blanco project illustrates an urgent need for reform within the CDM,” said Alyssa Johl, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL). “Once a project has been registered under the CDM, affected communities have no means to voice their concerns regarding the project’s social and environmental impacts. The UN climate regime must establish a process that allows communities to seek recourse for the harms associated with CDM projects, as well as a process to deregister projects where there are clear violations of CDM rules as in the case of Barro Blanco.” “Given the CDM’s lack of a complaint procedure and the Panamanian government’s failure to protect the Ngäbe’s rights, the communities need Mr. Anaya’s support,” said Abby Rubinson, associate attorney in Earthjustice’s International Program. “We appreciate Mr. Anaya’s past efforts to engage the Panamanian government to respond to the Ngäbe’s concerns, and we ask him to continue to play this much-needed role to prevent further violations.” The Panamanian non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that signed the letter to Mr. Anaya were CIAM, Movimiento 10 de Abril, and Asociación Ambientalista de Chiriquí. CIEL, Earthjustice, Inter-American Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), International Rivers, Carbon Market Watch, Both ENDS, Collective Voices for Peace, Salva la Selva and Marin Interfaith Task Force on the Americas comprised the international groups that signed the letter to Mr. Anaya.
Read more