Press Center
Plan Colombia Aerial Herbicide Spraying Not Proved Safe for the Environment – Released to US Congress
For Immediate Release February 14, 2007 CONTACTS: Anna Cederstav, AIDA (510) 550-6700 [email protected] Astrid Puentes, AIDA (5255) 52120141 [email protected] PLAN COLOMBIA AERIAL HERBICIDE SPRAYING NOT PROVEN SAFE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT Critique of recent studies by international environmental NGO released to Congress today OAKLAND, CA, MÉXICO, D.F. - In December, the Colombian government violated a bilateral accord with Ecuador by spraying a mixture of herbicides intended to destroy coca crops within 10 kilometers of the Ecuadorian border. To justify the spraying, Colombia relied on studies by a team from the Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD) of the Organization of American States (OAS), claiming that the spray mixture is safe. However, an independent review of CICAD’s recent studies, released to members of the U.S. Congress today, shows that the pesticide mixture being sprayed has not, in fact, been proven safe for the environment, and that Ecuador has substantial cause to oppose the spraying. According to the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), the first CICAD Environmental and Human Health Assessment of the Aerial Spray Program for Coca and Poppy Control in Colombia, released in 2005, did not assess many of the greatest potential ecological and human health risks posed by the aerial eradication program in Colombia. Because of these omissions and the potential environmental risk of the spraying, the U.S. Congress requested further studies to better assess whether the mixture is truly safe for the environment. Preliminary results from the follow-up studies, released in August 2006, show that the mixture is indeed potentially harmful to the environment, and particularly to amphibians – the spray mixture killed 50 percent of the amphibians exposed in less than 96 hours. According to Earthjustice scientist and AIDA’s Program Director Anna Cederstav, “Contrary to what is argued by the government, this study shows sufficient cause for concern to suspend the sprayings due to potential environmental impacts, especially considering that Colombia has the second highest amphibian biodiversity in the world and the most threatened amphibian species.” Many other key questions about the environmental impacts of the spraying also remain unanswered, despite the U.S. Congressional mandate to conduct the studies. For example, the State Department has not provided adequate information about the location of and risk to sensitive water bodies and has done nothing to address whether other threatened species are likely to be harmed. Without these determinations, the claim by the Colombian government that it is safe to spray along the Ecuadorian border is misinformed. “Given the number of unanswered questions about the safety of the spraying, and considering the precautionary principle and the international obligation not to cause impacts to the territories of other States, the Colombian government should halt spraying immediately, and instead implement more effective and environmentally safe alternatives for coca eradication,” said Astrid Puentes, AIDA’s Legal Director.
Read moreAIDA critical of Colombian spraying in Ecuadorian border region
AIDA critical of Colombian spraying in Ecuadorian border region The Colombian government is violating a bilateral accord with Ecuador by spraying a mixture of herbicides intended to destroy coca crops within 10 kilometers of the Ecuadorian border. Colombia is relying on studies by a team from the Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD) of the Organization of American States (OAS) to claim that the spray mixture is safe. AIDA’s independent review of CICAD's recent studies, however, shows that the pesticide mixture being sprayed has not, in fact, been proven safe for the environment, and that Ecuador has substantial cause to oppose the sprayings. The first CICAD Environmental and Human Health Assessment of the Aerial Spray Program for Coca and Poppy Control in Colombia, released in 2005, did not assess many of the greatest potential ecological and human health risks posed by the aerial eradication program in Colombia. The U.S. Congress requested further studies to determine whether the mixture is truly harmful to the environment. Preliminary results from the follow-up studies, released in August 2006, show that the mixture is indeed potentially harmful to the environment, and particularly to amphibians – the spray mixture killed 50 percent of the amphibians exposed within 96 hours. Additionally, the State Department has not provided adequate information about the location of and risk to sensitive water bodies and has done nothing to address whether other threatened species are likely to be harmed. Without these determinations, any claim by the Colombian government that the spray mixture is safe enough to spray along the Ecuadorian border is misinformed.
Read moreAIDA Calls for Alternative Development Programs in Colombia
AIDA Report Highlights Need for Alternative Programs in Colombia After six years of spraying herbicides over large areas of the Colombian countryside under "Plan Colombia," the aerial spraying program has failed to meet the goal of eliminating 50 percent of illicit crops in this country. Despite an investment of nearly US$1.2 billion, and the spraying of more than four times the initial area of coca crops, coca cultivation in Colombia continues, at nearly the same levels as when the program originated. Meanwhile, the spraying continues to cause severe social impacts and pose unknown environmental risk. AIDA has prepared a report analyzing some of the participatory, sustainable, alternative development programs that have proven more effective than aerial spraying. The report recommends that the U.S. and Colombian governments reevaluate the current policy and substantially increase support for such alternatives. The report highlights the need for a comprehensive approach to the problem of illegal crop cultivation, with a strategy that addresses the root-causes of the problem. The report provides detailed information and an analysis of five programs implemented by different actors, all of which can serve as models or provide lessons learned for new programs. Although improvements can still be made, alternative development programs have yielded concrete, positive results and have been far more cost-effective than the spraying program.
Read more
Legal victory! - Peruvian Constitutional Tribunal Orders the Government to Address the Public Health Emergency in La Oroya
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 12, 2006 Contact: Dr. Anna Cederstav, Earthjustice/AIDA, (English) (510) 457-4010 [email protected] Dr. Carlos Chirinos, SPDA, (Spanish) (+511) 441-9171 [email protected] Hunter Farrell, MOSAO/Technical Roundtable, English (+511) 97094921 Legal victory! Peru Supreme Court Demands Government Protect Public Health from Doe Run Smelter in La Oroya LIMA, PERU — Peru's Supreme Court has given the Ministry of Health 30 days to declare a health emergency in La Oroya, and to put in place an emergency health plan for the city, widely considered one of the most contaminated cities in the Western Hemisphere. The city is the home of a multi-metal smelter, owned and operated by the Doe Run Company of St. Louis, Missouri, one of the companies owned by Mr. Ira Rennert and the Renco group of New York. While the ruling named the Health Ministry as the agency primarily responsible for protecting the health of La Oroya's population, it also called on the Doe Run Company to reduce toxic contamination and protect public health in La Oroya. The ruling requires the Health Ministry to pay special attention to health risks faced by children and pregnant women. “This is great news for the citizens of La Oroya, who have received justice from the Courts, and who -- in spite of having been threatened and persecuted for their role in demanding health protection in La Oroya -- had faith that justice would prevail,” said Dr. Carlos Chirinos, the attorney with the Peruvian Society for Environmental Law responsible for bringing the case almost four years ago. An initial victory in the lower court had been immediately appealed by Peru's Health Ministry, forcing the plaintiffs to bring the suit to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruling allows 30 days for the Health Ministry to declare a health emergency in La Oroya, an action demanded by the Movement for Health in La Oroya (MOSAO) since 2003. A spokeswoman for the group, Dr. Eliana Ames, expressed satisfaction with the ruling: "This is the first time the Peruvian Government has acted to defend the health of all La Oroya's children and population." Earlier efforts of Peru's Environmental Health Authority (DIGESA) were limited to a few hundred of La Oroya's estimated 10,000 children, more than 97% of whom suffer from excessive levels of lead, according to last year's study by the St. Louis University's Public Health School. A related request to protect health by issuing precautionary measures for La Oroya is still pending before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. This case was brought by AIDA (Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense), Earthjustice, CEDHA (Center for Human Rights and Environment), and Carlos Chirinos.
Read moreInter-American Commission on Human Rights Asked to Prevent a Public Health Crisis in La Oroya, Peru
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 21, 2005 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Asked to Prevent A Public Health Crisis in La Oroya, Peru March 2005 study finds 99 percent of town’s children poisoned by lead SAN JOSE, COSTA RICA – The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense, along with participating organizations Earthjustice and the Center for Human Rights and Environment, asked the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) on behalf of a group of La Oroya residents, to take action to protect the right to life and health of residents of La Oroya, Peru. The population in La Oroya is seriously affected by contamination from the operation of a lead and copper smelter. Specifically, the organizations asked that the Commission demand that the government of Peru: Provide adequate health examinations and medical attention for the citizens of La Oroya Implement educational and health programs Ensure appropriate evaluation and monitoring of the “Environmental Management and Mitigation Plan” proposed by the company Effectively control air emissions from the complex Evaluate the contamination levels in homes Take additional measures needed to ensure that the blood lead levels of La Oroya residents meet international health standards. The need to take action on behalf of this Andean city, located 175 km east of Lima, stems from the extreme amount of contamination that the smelter generates, particularly lead, arsenic, cadmium, and sulfur dioxide. Since 1999, the Government of Peru has known that almost all the children living near the complex suffer from lead poisoning, yet has taken no action to remedy the situation. A March 2005 study again showed that 99 percent of the children tested had blood lead levels vastly exceeding the limits established by the US EPA and the World Health Organization. “We are looking to lower the high levels of lead and other contaminants such as cadmium, arsenic and sulfur dioxide in the city. These generate serious public health problems, including high levels of respiratory illness such as asthma and bronchitis,” affirmed Earthjustice attorney Martin Wagner. According to Romina Picolotti, CEDHA President, ”instead of protecting the health of its citizens, the Peruvian government has delayed the implementation of measures to control the contamination, and has failed to enforce health and environmental laws.” “This lack of action has increased the risk to health, life, and physical integrity suffered by citizens in La Oroya”, added Fernanda Doz Costa, attorney with CEDHA. In April 2005, a Peruvian court ordered the State to take measures to protect the population, but this order was appealed and no action has been taken. "There can be no doubt that the severe injuries caused by the contamination in La Oroya violates the residents’ fundamental human rights,” said Earthjustice attorney Martin Wagner. “Action by the Inter-American Commission could protect thousands of children and other victims from further injury.” CONTACT: Carlos Chirinos, +511-422-2720 ([email protected]) Romina Picolotti, CEDHA +54 (351) 425-6278 ([email protected]) Astrid Puentes, AIDA +52 (55) 5212-0141 ([email protected]) Martin Wagner, Earthjustice +1 (510) 550-6700 ([email protected])
Read moreJudge Orders Measures to Protect Public Health in La Oroya
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 14, 2005 Judge Orders Measures to Protect Public Health in La Oroya In April of 2005, a Lima civil court ordered the Peruvian Ministry of Health (MINSA) and the General Directorate for Environmental Health (DIGESA) to take steps to alleviate a public health crisis in La Oroya, Peru, a city where the Doe Run company of Missouri operates a large multi-metal smelter. The court ruled that MINSA and DIGESA have failed to carry out the government’s duty to protect the population in La Oroya. In spite of numerous studies showing a severe health crisis in the city, the government has taken no action to protect public health. The Doe Run smelter emits large amounts of toxic heavy metals and sulfur dioxide into the environs of the city. According to a recent study by the company and health authorities, the contamination is so severe that 99.9 percent of the children in the neighborhood closest to the smelter—La Oroya Antigua—have blood lead levels that far exceed the permissible levels recommended by the World Health Organization.
Read moreLegal Action Temporarily Protects Leatherback Sea Turtles in Costa Rica
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 30, 2005 CONTACTS: Rolando Castro, CEDARENA, (506) 283-7080, [email protected] Anna Cederstav, AIDA / Earthjustice (510) 550-6700, [email protected] LEGAL ACTION TEMPORARILY PROTECTS LEATHERBACK SEA TURTLES IN COSTA RICA SAN JOSE, Costa Rica — By admitting a suit filed by environmental organizations to protect the leatherback turtle, the Constitutional Chamber of the Costa Rica Supreme Court has granted an injunction against construction projects in the Leatherback Turtle Marine Park. The defendants -- the National Technical Environmental Secretariat (SETENA), the Municipality of Santa Cruz, the Ministry of Finance, and the Ministry of Environment and Energy, are charged with violating the constitutional right to a healthy environment. The suit, brought by the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) and its Costa Rican participating organizations – the Environmental and Natural Resources Law Center (CEDARENA), and Justice for Nature (JPN) – seeks the effective protection of the park. Specifically, the suit aims to halt construction of beach houses and tourist developments within the national park area, and to prevent the government from authorizing potentially detrimental construction before the lands dedicated to the park have been protected. The leatherback turtles are ancient reptiles surviving from the age of the dinosaurs. The species is highly endangered; with Pacific populations threatened with extinction within a decade, and as such is protected under various international treaties and the Costa Rican legislation. The presence of humans and particularly lights from houses, disturb turtles coming ashore to lay eggs and prevent the hatchlings from finding their way to the sea, thus posing a severe threat to the reproduction and future viability of the leatherback turtle. The Costa Rican Congress created the Leatherback Turtle Marine Park in 1995, to protect critical habitat where the leatherback turtle is known to reproduce. The park includes the most important remaining nesting beaches on the Pacific Coast of the Americas -- The Carbon, Ventanas, Langosta, and Grande beaches. In fact, eighty percent of the leatherbacks that nested in the 2001-2002 seasons in Costa Rica did so in the Park. Other Costa Rican nesting beaches, such as Flamingo, and Tamarindo, have already been destroyed by the lack of coastal environmental planning. “The Leatherback Marine Park should be protected from poorly planned development,” said Anna Cederstav, AIDA Program Director. “Costa Rica has an important opportunity to protect this species, which is not only part of our global environmental heritage but also a valuable economic resource for the nation.” In a 2004 report, the Costa Rican General Attorney’s office urged the authorities to not permit construction in the Park, citing impacts on the leatherbacks. The recommendation has not been heeded. The NGOs assert that the government has failed to fulfill their obligations to protect the Park and endangered marine biodiversity. The Santa Cruz Municipality should defend local interests and guarantee environmental protection within its jurisdiction. SETENA must ensure that development does not damage fragile ecosystems and protected areas. The Ministry of Environment is responsible for expropriating and conserving the land within the national park limits, and the Ministry of Finance is supposed to dedicate the necessary funds. “The injunction against construction and further permitting sends a clear message to SETENA and the Municipality that in the case of National Parks, governments must act with caution and not approve projects that threaten the ultimate goal for which the parks were established,” said Rolando Castro, attorney with CEDARENA. “We trust that the Constitutional Court will decide in favor of the leatherback turtle, a species that the court has previously determined to be a shared and highly migratory resource. The Park has great potential for scientific and tourism purposes and is an important source of local income.” This case will prevent irreparable damage to the area designated as National Park while the expropriation proceeds, and will establish an important precedent in that there are many other parks, not only in Costa Rica but throughout the Americas, that face similar threats.
Read moreHealth Risks in La Oroya are Higher Than Expected: Lead and Lead Compounds Classified as Carcinogens (Spanish text)
PARA PUBLICACIÓN INMEDIATA: 8 de febrero de 2005 Contactos: Carlos Chirinos, SPDA, +51-4211394, [email protected] Eliana Ames, LABOR, +51-2616515, [email protected] Anna Cederstav, AIDA, +1-510-550-6748 (EEUU) RIESGO DE SALUD EN LA OROYA ES MAYOR DE LO PENSADO: PLOMO Y COMPUESTOS DE PLOMO CLASIFICADOS COMO CANCERÍGENOS. LIMA, PERÚ – El 31 de enero de 2005, el Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos de los Estados Unidos publicó el Informe Semestral sobre Cancerígenos, el cual incluye por primera vez el plomo y todos los compuestos con contenido de plomo como sustancias que probablemente causan cáncer en seres humanos. Este informe enlista las sustancias cancerígenas en dos categorías, aquellas “conocidas como cancerígenas para el hombre,”y aquellas “con probabilidad razonable de ser un cancerígeno para el hombre.”Debe resaltarse en este Informe la inclusión del plomo y de los compuestos del plomo en la categoría de “probabilidad razonable de ser un cancerígeno humano”. Esta nueva clasificación de plomo y todos los compuestos de plomo se ha basado en datos epidemiológicos de estudios en humanos y en evidencia sustancial de estudios en animales experimentales. Por ejemplo, se demostró que la exposición al plomo aumenta la presencia de tumores en los riñones, el cerebro, el sistema hematopoyético y los pulmones en ratas y/o ratones (IARC 1980, 1987). Todavía no se entienden completamente los mecanismos por los que el plomo causa cáncer, pero los estudios realizados en seres humanos que estuvieron expuestos por su ocupación al plomo, han sugerido que el plomo daña los cromosomas o el ADN, lo cual puede causar cáncer (ATSDR 1999, NTP 2003). El plomo es liberado en el ambiente predominantemente por procesos industriales. Dentro de estos procesos, las fundiciones de plomo por sí solas son actualmente la fuente principal de las emisiones de este metal pesado, contabilizando más del 78% de todas emisiones de plomo en 2001 en los Estados Unidos (EPA 2003). Además de incluir el plomo y sus compuestos en la clasificación de sustancias con “probabilidad razonable de ser un cancerígeno para el hombre”, en noviembre de 2004 la Agencia de Protección Ambiental (EPA) de los Estados Unidos anunció el inicio de un proceso de recopilación de información necesaria para revisar los estándares de calidad de aire respecto del plomo. El estándar actual de los Estados Unidos de 1.5 ug/m3 como promedio anual, el que sirvió de base a los estándares fijados para el Perú en 2003, no ha sido revisado en más de veinte años, por lo que no toma en cuenta la información científica más reciente y esta alejado de los estándares internacionales. De hecho, el estándar de la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) es de 0.5 microgramos de plomo por metro cúbico en el aire, siendo hasta tres veces más estricto que el de los Estados Unidos. Estas ultimas dos acciones del gobierno de los Estados Unidos evidencian la rigurosidad necesaria con la que se viene asumiendo el tema del plomo, debido al alto riesgo que este conlleva para la salud humana. En contraste, en el caso peruano resulta particularmente preocupante la situación de ciudades como La Oroya y otras poblaciones ubicadas en áreas de influencia minero metalúrgicas en donde se producen concentrados de plomo, por las altas concentraciones de este contaminante, que claramente representan un riesgo para las personas. No hay duda entonces de la urgencia de implementar medidas eficientes para evitar el aumento del riesgo para la salud humana, incluso la posibilidad de sufrir cáncer, que enfrentan las personas que viven y trabajan en estos lugares.
Read moreU.S. Congress Conditions: Spraying in National Parks
Astrid Puentes, AIDA (510) 550-6753 [email protected] Gastón Chillier, WOLA (202) 797-2171 [email protected] US CONGRESS CONDITIONS ANTI-NARCOTICS SPRAYING IN COLOMBIAN NATIONAL PARKS OAKLAND, CA, DECEMBER 10, 2003 — For the first time, the US Congress has officially acknowledged that US funds for the “Plan Colombia” drug eradication program may be used to spray coca and poppy crops located in Colombian national parks and other natural protected areas. However, the Congress conditioned funding for such spraying on compliance with Colombian law and a determination by the Department of State that “there are no effective alternatives to reduce drug cultivation in these areas.” The decision is part of the 2004 appropriations bill for the Andean Counterdrug Initiative, a key element of the US “War on Drugs” in Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. The authors of the bill that will be voted in January of 2004, agreed that while there is concern that coca growers are moving into Colombia’s national parks, aerial fumigation in the parks and reserves should be used only as a last resort. Instead, Congress favors alternatives such as manual eradication, training and equipping the police to protect the parks, and relocating families that have moved into these areas. “The policy of using aerial spraying to eradicate illicit crops poses significant threats to human health and the environment,” says Astrid Puentes, Legal Director for AIDA. She adds that “The conditions imposed by the US Congress are a step in the right direction, though to truly protect the environment in Colombia we must ensure that the eradication forces begin complying with Colombian laws and stop trying to weaken them.” Each year, Congress has conditioned the State Department’s use of funds for the spraying program on actions intended to help protect human rights and the environment. As in previous years, the Congress required that in 2004 the State Department certify that: the use of these herbicides in Colombia does not pose unreasonable risks or adverse effects to humans or the environment; the eradication program complies with the Colombian Environmental Management Plan; and the governments investigate and fairly compensate meritorious complaints about health harms and the destruction of legal crops. For the first time, however, the Congress also referred to and conditioned the spraying of national parks and reserves. In 2001, Colombia’s environmental authorities specifically excluded national parks and natural reserves from the regions that are subject to aerial herbicide spraying. Instead, they ordered that manual or mechanical means be used to destroy coca and poppy crops in these areas. The authorities also prohibited the spraying of significant buffer areas surrounding the parks to avoid harms from spray drift or accidental spraying. These special protections are in line with the Colombian Constitution and environmental laws that establish special protections for these environmentally sensitive areas. Therefore, spraying in natural parks and natural reserves in Colombia is clearly illegal. Nevertheless, the Colombian National Anti-narcotics Agency that collaborates closely with the US Department of State has sprayed in Colombia’s national parks. Moreover, in June 2003, the Colombian National Council on Narcotics attempted to legalize such spraying. This action is being contested in Colombian courts for violating the Constitution and other laws. According to Anna Cederstav, a scientist with AIDA, “A policy that creates no viable economic alternatives for farmers simply perpetuates the cycle of farmers cutting forests to plant coca and the government spraying herbicides to destroy the fields. The US and Colombian governments should make a good-faith effort and give manual eradication and alternative development projects a chance to work, instead of relying on massive aerial spraying and military campaigns to destroy the crops.” She adds that “As the US Congress has now recognized for the National Parks, spraying should be the last recourse, but unfortunately it is the only one that has been systematically implemented until now.” The extensive spraying of potent herbicides could have devastating environmental impacts in the National Parks of Colombia, one of the most biodiverse nations on the planet. Important regions of the Amazon basin, the Tropical Andes, and the Chocó coastal rainforest are all located in Colombia. These vital ecosystems are being destroyed not only by illicit drug cultivation, but now also by the eradication program.
Read more
Colombian Court Orders the Suspension of Plan Colombia Spraying
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 26, 2003 CITING RISK TO HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT, COLOMBIAN COURT ORDERS THE SUSPENSION OF THE US-FINANCED SPRAYING OF COCA AND POPPY CROPS OAKLAND, CA/BOGOTA, COLOMBIA – A recent decision by the Superior Administrative Court of Cundinamarca, Colombia, (released to the public on June 25) declared that the aerial spraying with herbicides to eradicate coca and poppy crops violates the Colombian constitutional rights to a healthy environment, security and public health. As a result, the court ordered that the aerial spraying of potent glyphosate herbicides be suspended until the government complies with the Environmental Management Plan for the eradication program, and conducts a series of required studies intended to protect human health and the environment. This verdict supplements earlier declarations by the Colombian Constitutional Court and the State Council, which respectively ordered the suspension of spraying in indigenous territories and full compliance with the Environmental Management Plan approved by the Ministry of Environment. According to Yamile Salinas of the Colombian Ombudsman’s Office, “This ruling recognizes the potential risks that the herbicide and the manner in which it is being applied pose to human health and the environment in Colombia,” She added that, “The application of the precautionary principle is of singular importance because the Court affirms that the significant and potentially irreparable risk posed by the spraying is reason enough to suspend the fumigation program.” “The US Congress has required the State Department to evaluate environmental and health impacts of Plan Colombia. This decision by a court in Colombia must be taken into account by the US State Department,” said Anna Cederstav, staff scientist with Earthjustice and AIDA. “In light of the evidence presented and the court’s clear decision on this matter, the Department of State cannot certify to Congress that the herbicide mixture, in the manner it is being used, poses no unreasonable risks or adverse effects to humans or the environment, or that the herbicide is being used in compliance with the Environmental Management Plan for the program.” She concluded that, “It would be highly irresponsible for the United States to continue the eradication program in contravention of the Colombian court order to suspend the spraying until appropriate public health and environmental protections are in place.” “This court order formally adopts many of the requirements for environmental and human protection that the Colombian Ombudsman and Comptroller General, along with both national and international non-government organizations, have been demanding for years,” said Yamile Salinas. “This decision is a victory for both public health and the environment of Colombia.” Press Contacts: Anna Cederstav, Staff Scientist with Earthjustice and AIDA, (Oakland, CA) tel. 510-550-6700 Yamile Salinas, Colombian Ombudsman’s Office, (Bogotá, Colombia) tel. 571-314-7300 Ext. 2324
Read more