Press Center
Complaint filed against World Bank Group for funding Eco Oro Minerals gold mine in fragile Colombian wetlands
Downstream community submits complaint to the IFC’s Ombudsman. Bucaramanga, Colombia – Today, local groups in Bucaramanga, Colombia filed a complaint against the World Bank Group’s investment in Eco Oro Mineral’s Angostura mining project with the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO), the independent grievance mechanism of the International Finance Corporation (IFC). The complaint cites, among ten main concerns, the IFC’s failure to evaluate the potentially severe and irreversible social and environmental impacts of the project, a large-scale gold mine located in a fragile, high-altitude wetland, called the Santurbán páramo, which provides water to over 2.2 million Colombians. The Committee for the Defense of Water and the Santurbán Páramo, a coalition of nearly 40 groups living downstream of the project in Bucaramanga, asserts that the IFC, the World Bank’s private-sector lending arm, ignored its own policies before investing US$11.79 million in Greystar Resources – now Eco Oro Minerals – in 2009. The IFC bought shares before the company had completed required environmental and social impact assessments. “There could be some twenty municipalities affected by this project. We think it is outrageous that such a damaging mining initiative has the backing of the World Bank, whose mission is to advance real and sustainable development,” said attorney Miguel Ramos, member of the Committee, which includes a diverse group of human rights, environmental, student and business organizations. Following tens of thousands-strong protests and controversial hearings, the Colombian Ministry of the Environment rejected the Vancouver-based company’s initial request for an environmental license, citing the country’s environmental and constitutional law prohibiting mining activity in páramo wetlands. Páramos are fragile ecosystems that supply about 75% of Colombia’s freshwater, including the drinking water of millions of people, and play a key role in mitigating and adaptation to climate change. The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and MiningWatch Canada support the Committee’s request that the CAO audit the project and recommend a full withdrawal of IFC funds. “The IFC promotes itself as a leader in environmental and social standards,” said Natalia Jiménez Galindo, a lawyer with AIDA. “Its stamp of approval paves the way for other investors. In this case, the IFC did not even ensure minimal protection for communities and the environment by requiring an environmental and social impact assessment.” Eco Oro’s project has already stimulated investments from at least five other companies in the immediate area, more than doubling the area under mining concessions in the Santurbán Páramo. “The IFC invested in Eco Oro’s mine, explicitly stating that were it successful it would spur other investments in Colombia’s mining sector. But the IFC did not do its homework to consider the serious environmental, social and economic consequences, particularly in an area that has been a conflict zone,” said Jen Moore, Latin America Program Coordinator for MiningWatch Canada. “It should reevaluate its investment and pull out.” The complaint alleges that the IFC glossed over potential security issues related to Eco Oro’s project. It provides documented evidence of violence associated with guerrilla and paramilitary activity following the establishment of military installations in the area in 2003, which contradicts company claims. Eco Oro holds mining rights to nearly 30,000 hectares (74,130 acres) of land in the Santurbán páramo, near the city of Bucaramanga in the department of Santander. In response to the rejection of its 2009 open-pit mine proposal, the company said in 2011 that it would pursue a completely underground mining operation, but the people of Bucaramanga remain widely opposed to the project. The region is thought to contain important deposits of gold, coal and other minerals.
Read moreBelo Monte Dam controversy to be part of UN’s Review of Brazil’s Human Rights Record
Geneva, Switzerland. On May 25, the United Nations will examine the Brazilian government’s track record for human rights during its Universal Periodic Review (UPR) in Geneva, Switzerland. Central to this debate will be the multiple claims of human rights violations surrounding the construction of the Belo Monte Hydroelectric dam, slated for the Xingu River in Brazil. Many Brazilian and international groups have already sent extensive documentation to the UN highlighting the human rights violations suffered by the indigenous and rural communities in the dam’s path. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights will present information from these and other reports as part of the review or the Brazilian government’s performance on its human rights obligations. Key to the controversy over the dam will be the lack of compliance with an April 2011 resolution from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), an international human rights body of the Organization of American States. The Commission requested that the government halt the project and take steps to protect indigenous communities, including un-contacted tribes in voluntary isolation. Up until now, the Brazilian government has refused to either implement the IACHR’s resolution or dialogue with affected communities in the case. Two civil society reports sent by a coalition of Brazilian and international groups last November highlighted these and other problems with Brazil’s contentious hydroelectric project. The report concludes that the government did not consult with affected communities nor obtain their free, prior, and informed consent, as required by international human rights law. It also documents violations to the rights to life and health, and the possible forced displacement of nearly 40 thousand families. The two reports form part of a growing body of allegations regarding human rights violations related to the Brazilian government’s plans to push the construction of large dams in the Amazon region. “We hope that as a result of the UPR, the Brazilian government will take a hard look at the damage that its energy and hydropower policies are causing for the rights of indigenous and traditional peoples,” stated Astrid Puentes, Co-director of the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), which co-authored the reports. “Brazil has a great opportunity to change its development model toward one that is truly sustainable and respects human rights.” According to Andressa Caldas, Director of the Brazilian human rights NGO, Global Justice, Belo Monte is now synonymous with violations of indigenous peoples’ rights and environmental irresponsibility. “The Brazilian government will have to respond to these allegations and is already expanding its delegation for the UPR with experts specifically to defend the Belo Monte dam. But there is no way to justify such an absurd project.” What is the UPR? The Universal Periodic Review is a proceeding in which all UN nations are reviewed every four years by the UN Human Rights Council, which is made up of representatives from different countries. During the process each country is given the opportunity to demonstrate the steps it has taken to improve the human rights situation and meet its obligations under international law.
Read more
Brazilian Government questioned yet again by international human rights body over Belo Monte Dam controversy
Brasilia, Brazil - On April 11, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), the human rights arm of the Organization of American States (OAS), asked the Brazilian government to explain reports of poor water quality and forced evictions in indigenous communities affected by the construction of the Belo Monte Hydroelectric Dam in the Xingu River Basin, Brazil. This is the second time that the Inter-American Commission has asked the government to explain the health and human rights impact of construction since requesting precautionary measures in favor of indigenous communities in April of last year. The IACHR also repeated its request that Brazil detail specific measures designed to mitigate the dam’s impact. The commission gave Brazil 20 days to respond regarding the situation in the Xingu River Basin. “We hope the Brazilian government will react quickly to this latest resolution by taking steps to protect the human rights of affected communities,” said Jacob Kopas, legal counsel with the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). The IACHR is currently reviewing an international lawsuit filed by the Xingu River Alive Forever Movement (MXVPS), Para Society for the Defense of Human Rights (SDDH), Global Justice, and AIDA. The lawsuit highlights the damages the project is causing to the Paquiçamba and Arara da Volta Grande Indigenous Reservations. “The case before the IACHR aims for Brazil to meet its obligations under international human rights treaties,” explained Roberta Amanajás, lawyer with SDDH. “And in the Belo Monte case, there is abundant evidence these rights are being violated.” This past January, indigenous communities downstream of the construction site registered several cases of diarrhea and skin rashes associated with the sudden deterioration in the water quality of the river, on which they depend for drinking, bathing and cooking. In response, the Brazilian Federal Public Ministry conducted an independent water quality analysis but results have not been published yet. According to Public Ministry officials, constant water control tests are necessary to avoid the risk of contaminating the river’s waters. Another complaint under investigation by the IACHR concerns the forced eviction of impoverished, rural communities, in an area where most small farmers do not have formal deeds to their land. Fearing evictions without any compensation whatsoever, many families have accepted payments worth less than half the market value of their lands. This was the case of farmers from the Santo Antonio village, where only 26 out of 252 rural properties had a formal deed. In one case, a farmer received only $3,775 USD for a property that would have fetched almost $12,000 USD on the open market a few years ago.
Read morePeru’s efforts to require La Oroya clean up should not be chilled by investment arbitration
San Francisco, CA – The following is a statement from the international organizations Earthjustice, the Inter-American Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), the Peruvian Society for Environmental Law (SPDA), and Public Citizen: In 1997, Doe Run Peru (DRP), an American company, bought from the government of Peru a metallurgical complex located in La Oroya, Peru. As a condition of the purchase, DRP agreed to comply with a number of environmental requirements aimed at protecting the environment and health of the local population. For 15 years, Doe Run has failed to fulfill these commitments. Now, rather than live up to its responsibilities, DRP and its parent company, the Renco Group, are using questionable legal and political tactics to continue to avoid its commitments—most prominently through an international arbitration case against the State of Peru. In 2011, the Renco Group brought a claim in an international arbitration tribunal for US $800 million against the State of Peru, alleging Peru’s non-compliance with and failure to honor its legal obligations. However, Peru should not be deterred from its efforts to require the company to clean up La Oroya. Here are just a few of the reasons why: 1. Even if the Peruvian Congress were to grant DRP another PAMA extension, the liability claims in Renco’s arbitration case against Peru would remain because Doe Run’s case against Peru involves more than the PAMA extension contemplated in the proposed law. The Peruvian legislature is currently debating a bill to extend Doe Run’s environmental remediation obligations (known by its Spanish acronym, PAMA) for a third time. The legislature’s Energy and Mining Committee quickly approved the bill. However, policymakers should not presume that Doe Run will drop its arbitration case against Peru if the legislature grants the extension. Indeed, the company is likely to find it advantageous to keep the investment case going (or launch new ones) in order to pressure the government through the international arbitration proceedings. 2. The company is using the investment arbitration to insulate itself from penalties in a case in Missouri courts. In 2007, attorneys filed lawsuits in Missouri (where Doe Run is headquartered) on behalf of children in La Oroya alleged to have experienced serious health problems from exposure to toxic pollution from the smelter in Peru. In a similar case resolved last year regarding harms to 16 children from Missouri, the Missouri court awarded the children US $358 million. In the aforementioned 2007 case about La Oroya in Missouri, DRP has insisted that the Peruvian government—not the company—should be held liable for these tort claims (even though the children are only claiming damages that occurred after Doe Run purchased the smelter). Therefore, the company will likely attempt to keep its international investment arbitration case alive until the Missouri case is resolved, so the Renco Group can use the arbitration to force Peruvian taxpayers to pay any penalty awarded against DRP. 3. The Renco Group is using the arbitration case to move the Missouri case to federal court and evade liability. Doe Run has aggressively tried to derail the Missouri case by insisting that the La Oroyan children’s claims be heard in US federal courts, where it appears Doe Run believes it is more likely to win the case. Twice, the Missouri judge refused to allow the company to do so. After launching the international investment arbitration against Peru, however, Doe Run made a new argument, and convinced the judge to move the La Oroyan children’s case to US federal court, which has jurisdiction over treaty-related claims. The Renco Group has an incentive to keep the international arbitration pending against Peru—regardless of whether the Peruvian legislature extends the PAMA—in order to maintain its argument that the case belongs in federal court 4. Giving in to the threat of the international investment arbitration would set a bad precedent for Peru and the world. As explained above, DRP is using the investment arbitration to serve many different interests. In each case, the common factor is that the arbitration threatens to make Peru—and Peruvian citizens—responsible for the contamination in La Oroya and any resulting penalties. If Peru responds to this threat by giving DRP special treatment at the expense of the children of La Oroya, it will send a message to DRP and multinational companies around the world that such threats are effective. This will weaken Peru’s ability to protect its interests, including the environment and human rights, in the face of corporate misbehavior. 5. DRP is using false arguments to try to shift the blame to others. In addition to the arbitration claims, DRP has long argued that Activos Mineros—a state-owned firm—should complete its PAMA obligations to remediate soils around the complex. Now DRP is claiming unfair treatment because Activos Mineros has not yet been required to do so. This argument makes no sense. It is well known that cleaned soils will quickly become re-contaminated if nearby smelter pollution continues. In Missouri, the authorities calculated that soils near the Doe Run smelter would be re-contaminated only a few years after Doe Run had remediated them at a cost of millions of dollars. Doe Run is well aware of this, yet argues that Peruvian taxpayers should spend millions of dollars cleaning soils in La Oroya that would be re-contaminated in mere months if the smelter were to reopen without first installing all necessary pollution controls. This would be a waste of resources and would not solve La Oroya’s health problems. Activos Mineros should indeed remediate the soils. But it makes no sense to do so until either DRP completes installing the control technology it has promised yet failed to deliver for 15 years, or after a decision is made to permanently close. The government of Peru should take these facts into account and make sure that it does NOT allow Doe Run to pressure it into reopening the complex in La Oroya. The government of Peru needs to ensure it is considering and protecting not only the rights of the workers, the economy of the region, and the health and human rights of the citizens in La Oroya that would be harmed by reopening the complex, but also protecting the national economic interests. Reopening the complex without clarifying the responsibilities for third party claims from cases such as the case pending in Missouri, would be folly and pose a significant economic risk for the nation. This could even result in economic costs for the people of Peru that exceed the benefits obtained from operating the complex. If the Peruvian legislature believes that it can or should extend the PAMA, it should insist on at least three non-negotiable positions. First, that the Renco Group drop its international arbitration claim. Second, that Doe Run agree that it will assume any liability in Missouri related to contamination stemming from the smelter in La Oroya. Third, that DRP complete all of its environmental requirements—before starting any operation—so that Peru can begin its soil remediation efforts and protect the health and human rights of the children of La Oroya. Every day that the fate of the La Oroya metallurgical complex remains undecided without a final solution to the contamination, the citizens of La Oroya suffer grave health risks which in turn increase the harms for which both DRP and the government of Peru could be held liable.
Read moreAIDA President Manuel Pulgar-Vidal named Peru Environment Minister
The Interamerican Assocation for Environmental Defense (AIDA) congratulates Manuel Pulgar-Vidal for being named head of Peru’s Environment Ministry. An accomplished environmental lawyer and thought leader, Pulgar-Vidal served as the President of AIDA's Board of Directors for eight years. He is only the third Peruvian to be sworn into the government's top environmental post. We are extremely thankful for all the hard work and guidance Pulgar-Vidal has provided AIDA since he helped found the organization in 1996. The appointment is a well-deserved recognition for a man who has dedicated his life to defending human rights and the environment. His new role won't be easy. Pulgar-Vidal joins a young government faced with its first crisis: widespread popular dissent over the potential environmental impacts of a massive proposed gold mine. But the opportunity to strengthen environmental governance and institutionalize environmental health protections is priceless. We know he's up for the challenge.
Read moreAIDA presents report at Durban linking climate change to decline of human rights in Latin America
Calls for measures to protect the human rights of the most vulnerable communities. Durban, South Africa – On Wednesday, December 7, 2011, the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) presented delegates at climate meetings in Durban, South Africa with a report detailing the negative effects of climate change on human rights to life, access to water, health, food, and housing for millions of people in Latin America. “Climate change causes the greatest harm to the human rights of those who are least responsible for greenhouse gas emissions – vulnerable and historically disadvantaged communities such as peasant farmers, indigenous peoples, and the urban poor,” said AIDA staff attorney Jacob Kopas. “Governments disproportionately responsible for historical and current emissions have an international obligation to contribute more to lasting solutions.” The most troubling of the impacts detailed by the report is a dramatic reduction in access to freshwater in Latin America. Increased melting of glaciers, degradation of high-mountain páramo wetlands, erratic weather patterns and severe droughts will limit dry-season access to water for up to 50 million people in the Tropical Andean region by 2050. Other impacts include heavier rains and flooding, which affected 2.2 million people and caused $300 million of damages in Colombia alone in 2010, and the loss of 80% of Caribbean coral reefs due in large part to warming ocean temperatures and ocean acidification. “The parties must understand that the climate change problem can no longer be ignored. We need to act now to help the world’s most affected communities cope with climate change by securing urgent yet attainable solutions like the Green Climate Fund here in Durban,” said AIDA attorney Andrés Pirazzoli, who distributed the report to delegates at the meeting. AIDA backs the Green Climate Fund, which would finance low-carbon technology adoption and adaptation programs in the developing world. AIDA issued the report this week to inform an investigation by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) on the link between climate change and human rights. The report calls for a binding climate treaty and for the biggest emitters to pay for adaptation and mitigation measures in the developing world.
Read moreBrazil boycotts OAS meeting over Belo Monte Dam
Government refuses to meet affected community leaders at Human Rights Commission. Washington, D.C.—The government of Brazil refused to attend a closed hearing convened by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) of the Organization of American States (OAS) today, taking a stance that threatens to set a chilling precedent for human rights and sustainable development throughout the Americas. The meeting, scheduled for 2pm, was intended to foster dialogue toward resolving conflict and discuss failures in protecting the rights of indigenous peoples threatened by the proposed Belo Monte hydroelectric dam in the Amazon Basin’s Xingu region of Brazil. Plans for the Belo Monte Dam ignore international protections such as the right to free, prior and informed consent, and jeopardize the health, livelihood and ancestral lands of thousands. “The government’s constant refusal to dialogue and its undiplomatic posturing shows its negligence as it sidesteps the law and ignores the rights of local peoples,” said Sheyla Juruna, a leader of the Juruna indigenous people who are affected by the proposed dam. “I am appalled by the way in which we are treated in our own land without even the right to be consulted on this horrific project.” Brazil’s refusal to attend today’s hearing is only its most recent rebuke to the IACHR, a bulwark of human rights protection in the Americas for more than 50 years. The government has not only ignored an IACHR request to halt the project in order to consult with affected communities, but also withheld its dues and recalled its ambassador to the OAS in protest of the IACHR, according to press reports. Brazil’s intransigence is similar to that of Peruvian strongman Alberto Fujimori’s regime, which took a similar stance against the OAS in 1999. “This flies in the face of the image Brazil promotes of a regional leader and host of important international environmental events like Rio +20 next year,” said Attorney Jacob Kopas of the Inter-American Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), a nonprofit environmental and human rights organizations representing affected communities. “With this decision, the government is shooting itself in the foot,” said Andressa Caldas, Director of Global Justice. “Should Brazil be granted a permanent seat on the UN Security Council when it undermines human rights institutions like this?” Organizations supporting communities affected by the dam, including the Xingu River Alive Forever Movement, AIDA, Amazon Watch, Global Justice and the Para Society for Human Rights, call on Brazil to comply with its international commitments and engage in a meaningful dialogue on human rights.
Read moreJury finds former owners of lead smelter liable for $358.5 million in damages
Doe Run Investment Holdings Company, Fluor Corporation and A.T. Massey Coal knew that lead pollution was harming children’s health. St. Louis, Missouri — Last Friday, the former owners of a lead smelter in Herculaneum, Missouri, were found liable for $320 million in punitive damages for negligently exposing 16 children and other residents living in the area to harmful lead pollution. “They obviously wanted to send a message: Don't choose profits over people,” said Mark Bronson, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. The jury awarded $320 million in punitive damages last Friday, July 29, against the Missouri-based Doe Run Investment Holdings Company, Texas-based Fluor Corporation and Virginia-based A.T. Massey Coal, corporations that owned the smelter prior to 1994. A day earlier, a civil judge had ruled that the three companies would have to pay $38.5 million to the families as compensation for health problems and lost lifetime earnings as a result of pollution that occurred between 1986 and 1994. It should be noted that according to court documents the current owner of the smelter, Doe Run Resources Corporation, had already reached a settlement with the plaintiffs for an undisclosed sum. This settlement covered the impacts of harmful pollution that occurred after 1994. DOE RUN PERU AND THE CASE OF LA OROYA Doe Run Resources Corporation is a subsidiary of Renco Holding Company, owned by Ira Rennert. After buying Doe Run Resources, Renco purchased the La Oroya Metallurgical Complex in 1997 and established another subsidiary, Doe Run Peru (DRP), to operate it. DRP has kept the La Oroya smelter idle since 2009, and is negotiating with the government to reopen it. AIDA and the SPDA have worked since 1997 to encourage the Peruvian government to hold DRP accountable for the pollution in La Oroya, which involves contaminants similar to those found in Herculaneum. The government demanded greater environmental controls at the metallurgical complex, which have not been fully implemented. This year, Renco Holdings began a process of international arbitration within the framework of the Trade Promotion Agreement between Peru and the U.S., arguing among other things that Peru has treated the company unjustly in requiring environmental improvements to the Complex. AIDA and the Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos (APRODEH) have brought a case and a request for precautionary measures on behalf of residents in La Oroya affected by the pollution before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. "The amount of damages awarded by the US court indicates the severity of lead contamination, particularly in children, and reminds us once again of the magnitude of human rights violations that have taken place in Missouri and in La Oroya," said Astrid Puentes Riaño , Co-Executive Director of AIDA. "So we insist on greater protections in La Oroya to address the situation there." Ramón Rivero, with the Sociedad Peruana de Derecho Ambiental (SPDA), praised the jury’s verdict and believes that it should be a model for similar cases in other parts of the world. “Measures such as the verdict against Doe Run in the United States are corrective actions taken by a government that aim to justly compensate those affected for the harm they suffered. We have to ask ourselves if the measures taken by the Peruvian government to date, with regard to the harm caused by DRP in La Oroya, comprise such just compensation,” said Rivero. “We need to take steps to protect public health that go beyond measurements and controls and that affect the wellbeing of the residents of La Oroya. We also need to evaluate the possibility of increasing the amount of compensatory damages that have been awarded,” Rivero concluded.
Read moreLiving beyond our means
An article from Waterkeeper on the valuable ecosystems services provided by coastal mangrove swamps and the threats these face from developers.
Read moreCivil society groups go to Court to defend Panama Bay
Groups submit arguments supporting government’s case for maintaining wildlife refuge. Panama City, Panama — Today, on International Mangrove Day, two civil society organizations announce their legal support for the government of Panama in a lawsuit brought by developers challenging the protected status of Panama Bay. The groups, the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) and the Centro de Incidencia Ambiental (CIAM), submitted legal briefs detailing national and international legal arguments for upholding environmental protections established by the government in 2009 through a resolution issued by the environmental authority in Panama. The developers who are contesting the law, Panama Bay Development and Compañia Lefevre, are seeking to open the area to development of vast tourism complexes. Extensive tourism in the area would bring devastating environmental impacts to the sensitive ecosystem. The Panama Bay coastline is ringed with miles of pristine mangroves, which provide critical breeding ground for species relied upon by Panama’s fishing industry. Each kilometer of mangrove-covered coastline generates about $100,000 USD for Panama annually. Mangroves also help protect Panama from the effects of global climate change by buffering the coast from increasingly powerful tropical storms and by storing carbon from the atmosphere in their roots. A mangrove forest can sequester 50 times more carbon than a tropical forest of the same size, making mangroves a conservation priority if countries wish to halt catastrophic climate change. The protected area of Panama Bay is roughly 211,000 acres, slightly larger than the land area of New York City. Panama Bay is one of the earth’s most biodiverse places and is an essential habitat for migratory birds and threatened species such as jaguars and loggerhead turtles. “In the face of ever more powerful and dangerous climate-change-driven tropical storms, destroying coastal mangroves is one of the worst things a country like Panama could do,” said Anna Cederstav, Ph.D., staff scientist and co-director of AIDA. According to Sandra Moguel, an attorney for AIDA in Mexico, “Article four of the Constitution of Panama requires the observance of the rules of international law throughout the territory of that country. Obligations under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance and the Convention on Biological Diversity, both of which have been ratified by Panama, should thus be taken into consideration in deciding the challenge against the natural protected area.” "The creation or declaration of a protected area does not constitute expropriation. What it does is protect and guarantee the right to a healthy environment contained in the Panamanian Constitution” said Maria Acuña, CIAM´s legal advisor.
Read more