Press Center
Organizations, coalitions, academia, and specialists support victims of toxic contamination in La Oroya
Experts filed 15 amicus briefs before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights upholding the central argument of the case: that the government of Peru is responsible for violating the human rights of residents of La Oroya for the lack of urgent and effective actions to address pollution from a metal smelter, and its harmful effects. San José, Costa Rica. Organizations, coalitions, academia, and specialists presented 15 legal briefs (Amicus curiae) before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to support the case of residents of La Oroya against the government of Peru, for human rights resulting from a metal plant spewing toxic pollution into the Andean city for nearly 90 years. The briefs contain solid evidence that support the central argument of the case: that the Peruvian government—by not taking urgent and effective action to address the pollutions and its effects—is responsible for the violation of the rights to life, health, personal integrity, childhood, and a healthy environment of the residents of La Oroya. This argument as expressed in a public audience on October 12 and 13, when the international court heard from witnesses, experts, victims, and government representatives. The briefs, sent to the Court between October 11 and 28, demonstrate that the importance of the case surpasses the Peruvian context and represents a historic opportunity to establish a key precedent in Latin America, and the world, that strengthens the right to a healthy environment and government’s role supervising business activities. One of the briefs was presented by the University Network for Human Rights in partnership with a panel of experts: five former authorities from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Tracy Robinson, James Cavallaro, Paulo de Tarso Vannuchi, Flávia Piovesan and Paulo Abrão) and three former Special Rapporteurs to the United Nations (John Knox, James Anaya, and Juan Méndez). Briefs were presented by Peruvian organizations— including the Technical Committee for Environmental and Human Health and the Civil Society Platform on Business and Human Rights—as well as from other countries in Latin America—the Mexican Center for Environmental Law (Mexico), Defensoria Ambiental (Chile), and Justice for Nature (Costa Rica)—and international organizations such as Earthjustice and The Center for Justice and Environmental Law. Furthering the international scope of the hearing, The Working Group for Strategic Litigation of Red-DESC and the United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights. From the academic sector, support came from the Human Rights Research and Education Center of the University of Ottawa (Canada), the Clinic for Human Rights of the Postgraduate Law School of the Pontificia Catholic University of Paraná (Brazil), and the Legal Clinic of Environmental and Public Health of the University of the Andes (Colombia). Other writings were presented by experts on the issues that the case addresses: David R. Boyd, Special Rapporteur to the UN on human rights and the environment, medical anthropologist Susana Ramírez, and attorneys Carla Luzuriaga-Salinas, Macarena Martinic Cristensen, and Ezio Costa Cordella. Following the hearing and the briefs, the next step in the legal process is to present written closing arguments a potential visit to La Oroya by the judges from the Court. The sentence, which cannot be appealed, is expected within six months. press contact Víctor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, [email protected], +525570522107
Read more
Global South statement on climate finance ahead of COP27
COP27 must reach agreements for an equitable, sufficient and sustainable finance that ensures a just transition. The 26th Conference of the Parties (COP26) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), held in Glasgow, Scotland, was one of the most important conferences for the climate finance agenda. Relevant issues of climate finance, such as access, balance and long-term vision, were at the heart of the finance agenda. Moreover, the already complex discussions were exacerbated in the context of COVID-19 pandemic, causing a growing need for financing in developing countries, particularly in the most vulnerable regions. In this regard, COP27 must take up and agree on pending discussions to move forward with firm steps towards the implementation of the Paris Agreement, which mandates "to make financial flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development ". The most important aspects that countries must agree on at COP27 in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, are: 1. Financing for a just transition, with a climate justice and gender focus: The Glasgow Pact integrates the concept of climate justice for the first time, but does not associate it with the issue of financing. Therefore, it is essential for COP 27 to recognize that finance is a fundamental means of implementation to achieve a just transition. Resources must be allocated with a climate justice and gender focus to foster an adequate distribution of finance that does not increase gender gaps, that is equitable across regions with a thematic balance. 2. Delivering on the $100 billion goal: At COP26, developed countries presented a progress report on the delivery of the $100 billion goal, which shows that the pledge is still not being met. COP27 should serve not only to present the progress made, but also to agree on a delivery plan that will make it possible to know the timing and instruments through which the financing will be transferred, which should not be less than US$500 billion for the period between 2020-2024. 3. Global stocktake and finance: Discussions at COP 27 on the global stocktake should lead to a better connection between needs and financial flows, as well as access to finance schemes, and address all the obstacles that allowed the adequate mobilization of resources in developing countries. 4. Increased funding for adaptation: At COP26, countries agreed to double adaptation finance by 2025, based on 2019 levels. At COP27, developed countries must present a satisfactory plan regarding how financing for adaptation will be doubled, and establish an ambitious goal to achieve a balance between mitigation and adaptation finance. This goal should aim for at least a 10-fold increase in adaptation finance and the plan should clearly include targeted support for the Adaptation Fund. 5. Financing for loss and damage: COP27 should be a milestone for loss and damage finance, achieving agreement on mechanisms to transfer financial resources to countries with the highest needs. On one hand, it is necessary to agree on the creation of a facility that will allow the establishment of medium and long-term goals in this matter. On the other hand, it is also necessary to establish a programmatic scheme in which the countries commit a percentage of their annual allocations to finance losses and damages. This funding should be additional to that earmarked for mitigation and adaptation. 6. A new collective quantified goal based on needs: The technical and high-level deliberations on the new collective quantified goal on climate finance should be based on the recognition of the current financial needs of developing countries. Support schemes for those that have not quantified their needs should be agreed, so that this information can be incorporated in the next 12 months, towards the 2024 negotiations. 7. Improved access to climate finance: At COP27, mandates should be established for multilateral financial mechanisms to make access to climate finance by local actors easier, faster, and more efficient, creating emergency windows in the event of crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Financial mechanisms such as the Green Climate Fund should innovate in their access schemes, particularly for the most vulnerable populations. 8. Decarbonization of public finances: COP27 must recognize that achieving a just transition and complying with Article 2.1.c of the Paris Agreement entail decarbonizing public finances, both in developed and developing countries. For developing countries, this means accelerating the reduction of their dependence on carbon-intensive revenues, such as those from oil, gas and mining concessions, and the sale of gasoline, diesel and natural gas. A fundamental step is to end fossil fuel subsidies and diversify revenues by promoting domestic investments that support a just economic transition, generating new jobs and revenues to invest in national and local needs 9. Debt restructuring and debt-for-nature swaps: At COP27, the importance of mechanisms such as debt-for-nature and climate swaps should be recognized as a way to mobilize more climate finance. The external debt burden is preventing many countries from investing domestic resources to address the problem. International financial institutions and developed countries should facilitate debt restructuring, including debt-for-protection schemes, as a way to mobilize more climate finance, allowing developing countries to invest these resources to reduce emissions and increase resilience by protecting biodiversity, ecosystems and all livelihoods for global benefit. 10. Towards transformational finance: COP27 should mark a milestone in the understanding and mobilization of climate finance, starting with the assumption that current climate finance schemes will not help change the condescending dynamics that have existed within the framework of international cooperation. Combating climate change requires the transformation of economic systems, real collaboration and solidarity, in which it is not only the amount of finance mobilized that matters. The quality of these resources should beequally important to ensure finance reaches those that need it the most, without generating additional burdens on women and vulnerable groups. It is time to transform the finance paradigm to make it more effective, fair and truly sustainable. Adhere to: AIDA Barranquilla +20 CEMDA Chile Sustentable Defensoría Ambiental Fernando Aguilera Fundación Hábitat Verde Fundación Plurales GFLAC Hub’s de Finanzas Sostenibles de GFLAC Instituto de Derecho Ambiental y Desarrollo Sustentable (IDEADS) Instituto Talanoa La Corporación La Caleta OLAC Plataforma CIPÓ Red Mundial de Jóvenes Políticos - Santa Cruz Bolivia
Read more
With La Oroya case, the Inter-American Court may set a key precedent for protecting a healthy environment in Latin America
On October 12 and 13, the international court will hear the case of people affected by toxic pollution in La Oroya, Peru. Beyond reestablishing the rights of the victims, the court’s eventual decision marks an historic opportunity to strengthen the protection of the right to a healthy environment in the region and to encourage States to adequately supervise corporate activities. Montevideo, Uruguay. On October 12 and 13, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights will hear the case of residents from La Oroya, Peru, whose fundamental rights have been violated for decades due to heavy metal contamination from a metal smelting complex. The hearing will take place during the 153rd Session of the Court, to be held October 10-21 in Montevideo, Uruguay. Last October, 15 years after the international lawsuit against the Peruvian State was filed, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights—in it’s decision on the merits of the case—established the Peruvian government’s international responsibility in the violation of the human rights of the residents of La Oroya, and referred the case to the Inter-American Court. At the hearing next week, as part of the process of drafting their ruling, the judges of the court will hear from witnesses, experts, and victims, as well as from State representatives. As organizations that have legally represented and accompanied the group of victims since the beginning of the case, the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) and the Pro Human Rights Association (APRODEH) will bring to the court strong arguments, supported by legal and scientific evidence, to defend the rights of the affected people. After a decades-long search of justice, the case is important not only for the community of La Oroya, but for all people affected by corporate activities across the continent. In addition, the case is representative of a serious political, social and environmental situation that has not been considered by national, regional and international politics. The current conditions prevent the citizens of La Oroya from having healthy prospects for the future. There exists a real need for justice and mobilization to generate a strong recognition of economic and environmental alternatives for the direct and indirect victims. Liliana Avila, senior attorney at AIDA, explains the context of the case and emphasizes the importance of a favorable and forceful decision by the court: "The La Oroya case before the Inter-American Court puts an end to more than 20 years of waiting in the search for justice and reparations for those whose lives were drastically changed by historic exposure to toxic contamination. It is a milestone for the Inter-American Human Rights System because it will be one of the first cases to centrally address the indivisible relationship between a healthy environment and other fundamental human rights such as life, health and personal integrity. It constitutes a unique opportunity to set a regional and global precedent for the protection of the right to a healthy environment and compliance with the obligations of States to adequately supervise corporate activities, as well as to guarantee the special protection of children, girls, women, the elderly and other vulnerable groups.” Gloria Cano Legua, executive director of APRODEH, refers to the urgency of a decision that grants justice and reparation to the people of La Oroya: "The victims have had to see how the State, through various governments, has disregarded its obligations, while their health problems have worsened. The indifference and sometimes hostility with which they have been treated has offended their dignity". PReSS CONTACTS: Víctor Quintanilla (AIDA), [email protected], +525570522107 Gloria Cano Legue (APRODEH), [email protected], +51 964 809 193 Christian Huaylinos Camacuari (APRODEH), [email protected], +51 959 789 232
Read more
Ambition and urgency needed as high seas treaty negotiations near end
New York: With only one week to go in the negotiations for a new Treaty to protect two thirds of the ocean - the High Seas - civil society is raising alarm about the level of urgency and ambition towards a robust outcome for the ocean. A number of States have made public commitments to secure an ambitious Treaty at this final scheduled session, but there is concern that this is not being fully reflected in the formal negotiating room. The High Seas Alliance (HSA) expects more ambition to be shown by the United Kingdom, the European Union, Canada and the United States which have been public champions for the ocean, including at the recent UN Ocean Conference. These delegations support some progressive positions within the Treaty negotiations, but too many appear to be maintaining positions that will not result in the transformation we need for a healthy and productive ocean for current and future generations. Some states and groups are pushing for a strong outcome. CARICOM, (the Caribbean Community), the Pacific Small Islands Developing States, New Zealand, Costa Rica and Monaco are setting the pace for a speedy and effective outcome. This round of negotiations, known as IGC5, is the fifth and final scheduled meeting convened by the UN General Assembly. It is tasked with concluding a Treaty to protect Biodiversity in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction, which includes the High Seas, and which makes up half the planet, two thirds of the ocean. For decades, the international community has struggled to reach this agreement during which time climate change and biodiversity loss have escalated. The HSA recognises that the “package” of elements under negotiation are intrinsically linked and critical to successful completion of the negotiations. “The greatest opportunity of our generation to show we are serious about protecting the global ocean is now. A strong High Seas Treaty is in reach but more ambition is needed. Governments must stick to their commitment to deliver a truly ambitious Treaty this week and finally move to taking action that will allow the ocean to recover and thrive; for marine biodiversity, Earth’s climate and the well-being of generations to come. There is no more time to waste. - Sofia Tsenikli, Senior Strategic Advisor to the HSA. QUOTES FROM MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS CANADA Susanna Fuller, VP Operations and Projects, Oceans North: "With the longest coastline in the world and as a self-declared ocean champion, Canada plays a vital role in achieving a strong Treaty. We are hoping to see Canada’s ambitions meet the urgent need for biodiversity protection and responsible management for 50% of the planet. With climate change impacts accelerating and biodiversity loss increasing, finalizing and implementing this Treaty cannot come fast enough." LATIN AMERICA Gladys Martínez de Lemos, Executive Director, AIDA (Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense): "Most Latin American countries have publicly stated their commitment to increase marine protected areas by 30% by 2030. This cannot be achieved without an ambitious High Seas Treaty. In addition, 70% of the areas that would not be protected need a high-level environmental impact assessment process with capacity and implementation. During all the negotiations Costa Rica has shown its commitment to a robust and ambitious Treaty. We thanked Costa Rica for its exemplary championship along these years." SOUTH KOREA Jihyun Lee, High Seas Alliance Youth Ambassador and undergraduate student at Yonsei University, South Korea: "Youth and future generations demand a strong and meaningful High Seas Treaty that will effectively protect the ocean. We are calling in unified support for world governments to finally take bold action for our ocean." US Lisa Speer, NRDC: “We applaud the more progressive approach of the United States, which has been a strong advocate for concluding the negotiations in a timely fashion, and for strengthening environmental assessment. However, we need the US to show more leadership to ensure that the new Treaty will result in the creation of a science-based network of fully protected areas in all areas of the High Seas, which scientists tell us is essential to reversing the decline of the ocean." EU + UK Laura Meller, Protect the Oceans campaign, Greenpeace: "It’s deeply concerning that the European Union and UK continue to insist on maintaining a broken status quo when it comes to creating ocean sanctuaries on the High Seas at this round of negotiations. The bloc and the UK must raise their ambition in the last days of negotiations if they truly want to be global ocean champions, and ensure that a strong Treaty which has the power to create properly protected ocean sanctuaries on the High Seas is finalised this week. If they don’t, their fine words in the run up to these negotiations will be little more than empty rhetoric. The oceans are in crisis. We need ambitious, urgent, action before it’s too late." PSID + CARICOM Travis Aten, Programme Officer, HSA: "We continue to applaud the Pacific Small Island Developing States (PSIDS) and the Caribbean Community’s (CARICOM) continued leadership during this negotiation process, notably through their support of robust and ambitious conservation positions. As islands that are surrounded by the ocean, it is clear to them that this Treaty must move beyond the current status quo and implement real change on how we manage biodiversity of the High Seas." Fabienne McLellan, Managing Director, OceanCare: “It is encouraging to see that there is an increased spirit of urgency in the room. Many negotiators are rolling up their sleeves, aware that the world is watching to judge if the rhetoric on ocean commitments made in the lead up to this conference is translating into the Treaty text. While unfortunately some of the Treaty text elements are being watered down, it is not yet too late to make a turn around. Cementing the status-quo and the lowest common denominator is not good enough. We need an ambitious and implementable Treaty. The state of emergency of the ocean demands nothing less. NOTES Covering nearly half of the world’s surface, the High Seas—a true global commons—is only protected by a loose patchwork of poorly enforced rules that are ill-suited to address a growing onslaught of pressures to the water column and seabed below, including climate change, pollution, fishing, and emerging activities like deep-sea mining and bioprospecting. The negotiations began in 2018 and have since benefited from increased scientific and political awareness of High Seas marine life and habitats, as well as the dangers they face from human activities. For instance, until relatively recently, “High Seas” were considered to be largely devoid of life or too remote to face serious threats from overexploitation. Today, scientists have shown that they support marine systems that are vital to the global food supply, terrestrial ecology, and stability of the climate system. SPOKESPEOPLE Latin America Mariamalia Chavez (Spanish, English), [email protected] Gladys Martínez de Lemos (Spanish, English), AIDA, [email protected]
Read more
AIDA applauds recognition of healthy environment as a universal human right
The decision adopted by the UN General Assembly is a call for States to recognize that the defense of the environment is essential for existence on the planet. The historic resolution strengthens longtime efforts to guarantee this right in practice. New York, USA. In a landmark resolution, the UN General Assembly recognized a safe, healthy, clean and sustainable environment as a universal human right. Since this right was absent from then Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, the decision marks a milestone for international human rights law. The resolution endorses language similar to that proposed in October 2021 by the UN Human Rights Council, which issued a draft resolution in June to the 193 members of the General Assembly. Sponsored by Costa Rica, Maldives, Morocco, Slovenia and Switzerland, the universal recognition of the right to a healthy environment was unanimously approved today, by a vote of 161-0. Liliana Avila, senior attorney of AIDA’s Human Rights and Environment Program, responds: "The United Nations recognition is a very important call for States to recognize that the environment involves essential elements without which our existence on the planet would not be possible. Most of the Constitutions in the continent already recognize the healthy environment as a right and citizens claim it daily through different mechanisms. The step taken today undoubtedly strengthens these efforts and advances us towards the construction of societies where this right is a reality." Gladys Martinez de Lemos, Executive Director, states: “Today marks a historic moment, one that enables citizens to demand the creation of measures to guarantee in practice a right that is now universally recognized. At AIDA we celebrate this new tool and reaffirm our 25-year commitment to protecting a healthy environment as a fundamental human right. The UN recognition represents a hope for justice for those who suffer from environmental degradation around the world—people like the residents of La Oroya, Peru, who have for decades breathed polluted air; families in Central America, forced to migrate due to the impacts of the climate crisis; coastal communities in the Caribbean who lost their homes due to the destruction of mangroves and reefs, natural barriers against storms and hurricanes; and the thousands of environmental defenders risking their lives to protect their territories." As a regional organization, AIDA would like to highlight the fact that a Latin American nation, Costa Rica, has led the proposal for recognition before the General Assembly. Its role was key to the result we are celebrating today. We also highlight the hard work of civil society organizations, social movements, local communities and indigenous peoples to promote this recognition. A healthy environment – recognized as a right by more than 150 States around the world – is a prerequisite for the realization of other human rights. Its recognition as a universal human right can lead to more effective laws and policies, and can help to empower local communities in the protection of their territory. Press ConTACT: Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), [email protected], +525570522107
Read more
Irish company buying Colombian coal to be investigated for lack of due diligence with regard to human rights
The OECD accepted a complaint filed by civil society against the Irish state-owned company ESB for its failure of responsible business conduct in the purchase of coal from Cerrejón. The National Contact Point (NCP) for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in Ireland agreed to evaluate the complaint filed against an Irish state-owned company, The Electricity Supply Board (ESB), for its lack of due diligence on human rights. ESB is a buyer of coal from Carbones del Cerrejón, the operator of the largest open-pit coal mine in Latin America. The complaint was filed in January 2021 by a coalition of national and international organizations, including CAJAR, CINEP, AIDA, GLAN, ABColombia, Ask, and Christian Aid. The complaint also had the support of several leaders of Wayuu and Afro-Campesino indigenous communities that have been historically affected by this extractive coal mining megaproject. For years ESB, considered Ireland's largest energy company, has purchased coal from the Cerrejón mine, located in La Guajira, Colombia, for use in its Moneypoint power plant in County Clare. The complaint alleges non-compliance by the company, as the purchaser, with the OECD's standards of due diligence and responsible business conduct in environmental and human rights matters. In addition, the complaint alleges that ESB has failed to take the necessary actions to influence Carbones de Cerrejón's own due diligence in identifying, mitigating, and preventing human rights abuses linked to the mine. This failure comes despite well-documented evidence of serious violations against Wayuu and Afro-Colombian indigenous communities, including environmental impacts and threats to human rights defenders. Following an initial assessment of the complaint, the Irish government's NCP released an initial statement on Monday, July 18, stating that it found sufficient grounds for further examination of the issues raised. From the perspective of the denouncing organizations, the purchase of Colombian coal by ESB has been made in spite of the company having been aware of ample evidence of serious human rights violations and environmental impacts in the territory of indigenous Wayuu and Afro-descendant communities. The company itself, on its official website, stated: "ESB is well aware of Colombia's difficult history that has had serious impacts on its population for many years. We are also aware of the issues reported in the media regarding the Cerrejón mine, many of which are related to Colombia's past. We are committed to remaining attentive to all of these issues and will continue to work with Bettercoal to influence and drive improvements. We bring these issues to Bettercoal for assessment as a matter of course." Although ESB had indicated that it stopped buying coal from Cerrejón in 2018 because of human rights violations, it recently announced that in the wake of the Russia-Ukraine war it was resuming its purchase of this coal for the coming months. "Six years ago, Ireland stopped buying Colombian coal, citing human rights concerns, and turned to Russia for the fossil fuel. Now, the European nation has resumed purchases from Colombia." On his recent visit to La Guajira in April of this year, Irish TD Gary Gannon criticized ESB for restarting coal imports from Cerrejón. Gary Gannon, who traveled to Colombia in April as part of the parliamentary delegation, said he had seen with his own eyes the devastating environmental impact of the mine and the pain of the indigenous communities displaced from their land for its expansion. "There is a disturbing double standard in this return to Cerrejón," he said. "We rightly say no to Russian coal after the invasion of Ukraine, recognizing the impact our business decisions can have on human rights. But that standard must apply everywhere, including Colombia." In the words of Wayuu leader Jakeline Romero Epiayu: "European countries, with total hypocrisy, send us messages of decarbonization, of abandoning the use of fossil fuels; but suddenly they put Colombia and La Guajira back in their focus to buy this coal that they continue to need, this coal that we have tirelessly said is stained with blood, stained with the lives of Wayuu men, women, boys, and girls." The complaint requested, among other recommendations, that ESB: end its commercial relationship with the purchase of Colombian coal, issue a public statement acknowledging the need for its cessation, request the mine's parent companies initiate progressive closure of the mine and remediate its impacts, compile and publish an effective human rights policy, and issue a formal apology to the affected communities. Following the issuance of this initial assessment, the Irish NCP will formally ask the parties if they are willing to participate in mediation, with the objective of reaching a resolution to the issues raised in the complaint. The goodwill offer is voluntary for both parties. If a mediated solution is not possible, the Irish NCP will conduct a review of the complaint. The outcome will be reflected in a Final Statement which may include recommendations on the implementation of the OECD guidelines. The Irish NCP also noted that it is still processing another complaint against CMC Coal Marketing Company, a Dublin-based company responsible for the marketing and sale of coal from the Cerrejón mine. In the wake of the war between Russia and Ukraine and the current context of increasing demand for Cerrejón coal, this complaint sends an important message that countries and companies that buy this coal must continue meeting their obligations with respect to human rights and corporate due diligence duties. José Alvear Restrepo Lawyers' Collective Center for Research and Popular Education Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) press contact: Víctor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, [email protected], +525570522107
Read more
In regressive decision, high court endorses fracking in Colombia
Bogotá, Colombia. Colombia’s highest administrative court, the Council of State, on Thursday ruled against a lawsuit that sought to nullify the government’s regulation of fracking, effectively endorsing the controversial technique’s implementation in the Andean nation. The nullity lawsuit was filed by the Public Interest Law Clinic of the Universidad del Norte—which was jointly advised by AIDA, Corporación Podion, and the legal clinics of Universidad Javeriana and Universidad de los Andes—in an attempt to challenge the legality of the rules that would allow for fracking operations in the country, found in 2013’s Decree 3004 and 2014’s Resolution 90341. This decision means the suspension of Colombia’s judicial moratorium on fracking, which has been in place since 2018, when the when the Council preventively suspended the rules based on the precautionary principle and due to the lack of certainty about the risks of irreversible damage that the technique implies for the environment, climate and public health. Fracking has been assessed by national and international academics and scientists as an experimental technique that threatens air, water, human health, democratic participation, social fabric and culture, traditional knowledge systems, biodiversity and, in the long term, economic, seismic and climatic stability. In addition, it creates atmospheric pollution due to the emission of methane—a potent gas whose warming potential is 84 to 87 times greater than carbon dioxide on a 20-year scale. While the Council of State's ruling ratifies the government's regulations and lifts the moratorium, it does not exonerate national and local authorities from protecting the environment and respecting the fundamental rights of the population as they consolidate the mining and energy policy. Legal experts who brought the case before the Court respond to the ruling: "In Latin America and around the world, many countries have banned fracking because of its impacts on the environment and on the protection of human rights. The ruling of Colombia’s Council of State is regressive and goes against international advances on environmental, climate and human rights issues.” - Yeny Rodríguez, attorney with the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) "The Council of State has issued a decision contrary to the facts proven in the litigation. They have ignored the survey conducted by the National University of Colombia, the report of the expert commission, the concept of the Attorney General's Office, and the rest of the documentary evidence and scientific texts that clearly demonstrated the need to prohibit this technique under the precautionary principle. In addition, the ruling ignores Colombia's international climate commitments and the principle of intergenerational solidarity, as it ignores the fundamental rights of future generations." - Juan Pablo Sarmiento, plaintiff’s attorney in the case. “The Council of State lost a great opportunity to strengthen, through the courts, a regulation that many experts considered too weak to protect the environment and public health. Its now is in the hands of the national government and the legislature to guarantee society the protection of the precautionary principle and democratic participation in environmental matters" - Juan Felipe García, attorney with the Law and Territory Clinic of the Universidad Javeriana “The decision of the highest administrative court in the country is not an open invitation to carry out fracking in Colombia. The government must fully guarantee the right to participation and the voice of communities in decision-making about projects that may generate environmental impacts in their territories, as well as guarantee the safety and protection of environmental leaders who defend their territories". - Silvia Quintero, legal advisor to the Environmental and Public Health Legal Clinic of the Universidad de Los Andes “The lifting of the judicial moratorium on fracking leaves open the possibility of moving forward with such projects whose contracts were previously suspended. It’s necessary that fracking have a social license because several regions of the country have been considered as potential areas for its implementation." - Lizeth Gómez, attorney with Corporación Podion Contactos de prensa: Juan Pablo Sarmiento, [email protected], +573005514583 Yeny Rodríguez, AIDA, [email protected], +573107787601 Juan Felipe García, Clínica en Derecho y Territorio de la Universidad Javeriana, [email protected], +573125588889 Lizeth Gómez, PODION, [email protected], +573176430036
Read more
AIDA celebrates WTO agreement to curb harmful fisheries subsidies
We consider the agreement a "crucial step" for the sustainability of fishery resources in the short, medium and long term, as well as for ensuring food security and the livelihoods of coastal communities. Geneva, Switzerland. As an environmental organization that has closely followed the negotiations to limit global fisheries subsidies, the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) applauds that member countries of the World Trade Organization (WTO) reached, after more than two decades, a binding agreement to curb some harmful fisheries subsidies. It represents a fundamental step toward achieving the effective management of our fisheries resources, as well as toward ensuring global food security and the livelihoods of coastal communities. "This is a crucial step towards ensuring the sustainability of fishery resources in the short, medium and long term," said Gladys Martinez de Lemos, executive director of AIDA. "We urge the 164 member countries of the WTO to ratify the agreement as soon as possible, and to implement the necessary changes derived from it to contribute significantly to the health of marine life and the well-being of those who depend on it." It is estimated that, each year, governments spend approximately $22 billion in negative subsidies to offset costs for fuel, fishing gear and vessel improvements, among others. As a result of that support, 63 percent of fish stocks worldwide must be rebuilt and 34 percent are fished at "biologically unsustainable" levels, according to recent data. The agreement reached at the 12th WTO Ministerial Conference, held June 12-16, provides for the creation of a global framework to reduce subsidies for illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing; subsidies for fishing overexploited stocks; and subsidies for vessels fishing on the unregulated high seas. The high seas fishing provisions represent an achievement for Latin America, a region whose fishing industry is severely threatened by aggressive foreign fleets fishing inside and outside of national jurisdictions. The agreement also includes measures aimed at greater transparency and accountability in the way governments support their fisheries sector. The countries agreed to continue negotiating rules to curb subsidies that promote fishing in other countries' waters, overfishing and the overcapacity of a fleet to catch more fish than is sustainable. "This agreement is one part of the movement we need at the international level to contribute to the health of the ocean," explained Magie Rodríguez, AIDA attorney. "We have three more to go: the high seas treaty, more ambitious and rigorous standards for ocean mining, and recognition of the key role the ocean plays in the climate crisis. We will continue to work with our allies to achieve these goals.” Although negotiations on fisheries subsidies officially began in 2001, it was not until the 2017 WTO Ministerial Conference that countries committed to taking action to reach an agreement at the next conference—which was to take place in December 2020, but was suspended due to the pandemic. This commitment also responds to the fulfillment of target 14.6 of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. In 2021, the Ministerial Conference failed to reach an agreement, but it did reach a draft text. "This year's achievement would not have been possible without the joint efforts of many different organizations, academia, governments and the private sector," said Martinez. press contact Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), [email protected], +525570522107
Read more
Court ruling may approve licensing for Belo Sun's mining project in the Amazon
Environmental licensing for the largest open-pit gold mine project in Brazil has been challenged by eight lawsuits exposing flaws in environmental impact studies. A possible decision in favor of Belo Sun may set a precedent that illegally restricts consultation of traditional peoples and sanctions human rights violations. Altamira (Pará), April 22, 2022 — On Monday, April 25, the Regional Federal Court of the 1st Region (TRF1) will rule on two decisive cases that could pave the way for the beginning of the project by Canadian mining company Belo Sun in Pará, in the Brazilian Amazon. The company plans to build the largest open-pit gold mine in Brazil, at Volta Grande do Xingu, one of the most biodiverse sites in the world and a region that has already suffered the impacts of the Belo Monte dam and hydroelectric plant. In 2017, the Regional Federal Court of the 1st Region (TRF1) revoked a second license granted by the state of Pará for the installation of the project, prompting the mining company to undergo a process of prior consultation with affected Indigenous peoples, in accordance with Convention 169 of the International Labor Organization (ILO). The Court also required the company to prepare an Indigenous Component Study (ECI) within the parameters required by Funai (Brazilian National Indigenous Foundation), on the impacts of the project on Indigenous peoples. At the hearing on April25, 2022, the court will revisit the case. Belo Sun claims it has complied with the requirements, but the Federal Prosecution Office (MPF) is contesting this assertion. The Prosecution Office says that Belo Sun performed no actual consultation with affected populations, and that the ECI study is flawed — researchers have considered the project to be environmentally unfeasible, with a high likelihood of dam failure. The Prosecution Office's claims are based on a report published in February by researchers from the Observatory of Community Protocols of Consultation and Prior, Free and Informed Consent, at the request of the Prosecution Office itself. “If the TRF-1 upholds Belo Sun's request, we will be facing a dangerous precedent, which illegally restricts the content of the consultation provided for in Articles 6, 15, and 16 of Convention 169 of the International Labor Organization (ILO), and sanctions the violation of the human rights of Indigenous peoples and traditional communities in Volta Grande do Xingu. Such decision would legitimize the lawless actions undertaken by Belo Sun and would open the doors to the exploration of the newest gold frontier in the Amazon, which, if made possible, will surely drive the ecocide and systematic destruction of the already-fragile region of Volta Grande,” declares Ana Carolina Alfinito, legal advisor at Amazon Watch, an organization that is part of the Volta Grande do Xingu Alliance. Belo Sun’s Volta Grande Project would affect multiple Indigenous peoples, including the Jurunas of the Paquiçamba Indigenous Land, the Araras of the Arara da Volta Grande Indigenous Territory, the isolated peoples of the Ituna-Itatá Indigenous Territory, and “desaldeados”—Indigenous groups who traditionally occupy territories that haven’t yet been formally demarcated by the Brazilian government. These groups inhabit territories very close to the site the project would occupy. Such is the case of the population that lives on Ilha da Fazenda, Ressaca, and Galo, in addition to the communities of São Francisco (Juruna), Iawa (Kuruaya), Jericoá II (Xipaia), Kanipá (Xipaia), and Kaniamã (Xipaia). The São Francisco community, for example, is located only 600 meters from the project area, so it would suffer serious and direct impacts, which makes its exclusion from the impact assessment and consultation process even more serious. According to the document from the Prosecution Office, Belo Sun only collected testimonies from the affected communities, leaving no room for Indigenous people to express their views and influence the project, as should occur in an effective consultation process. The report also suggests that the mining company is attempting to classify meetings with the desaldeado communities as consultations—although the company’s initial and expressed goal was merely to collect information. There are no records that Indigenous people who attended these meetings were informed that they were attending a prior consultation process for deliberation on the gold mine. A 2012 ruling by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights upholds that consultations must take place “at all stages of planning and from the earliest phases.” The same ruling by the Court determined that prior consultation is a responsibility of the government, which cannot be delegated to private companies, “much less to those interested in extracting the resources. There are records of meetings in which only representatives of Belo Sun and some of the Indigenous communities participated, without the presence of governmental agencies,” the Observatory's report points out. In a statement to Repórter Brasil, Lorena Kuruaya says that the Iawá community, made up of members of the Xipaia and Kuruaia peoples and one of those affected by Belo Sun’s project, sent several consultation requests to Funai but got no response. “We need to know about the project, about explosions and the use of cyanide, because we fear what happened in Brumadinho and Mariana. To date, we have been treated as if we were invisible in the consultation process,” reads a letter from 2020 signed by community members. In another joint communiqué, according to Repórter Brasil, residents of Iawá and the Kanipá, Jericoá I, and Jericoá II communities informed Funai that none of them had been “sought, consulted, let alone informed” about the implications of the project, and requested mediation from the agency so the mining company could present explanations, execution plans, and potential environmental impacts. “A decision in favor of Belo Sun means that the Brazilian government, as in the case of Belo Monte, will once again side with big companies, completely ignoring the socio-environmental impacts that will result from this project,” points out lawyer Marcella Ribeiro, from the Human Rights program of AIDA (Inter-American Association for Environmental Defense). “The polygons under scrutiny go beyond the river area and extend to Indigenous regions. Within a few years we will likely see gold exploration in adjoining areas. And if Bill 191 is approved, these Indigenous lands will become a large mine,” she proclaims. Failures and impacts of Belo Sun’s project According to experts, the Belo Sun mining project in Volta Grande do Xingu has serious structural flaws which were not clearly presented to the impacted communities during the consultation process. Environmental impact studies carried out by the mining company disregard both the potential seismic impacts on the tailings dam that needs to be built and the cumulative impacts it would cause along with the dam of the Belo Monte plant. The dam designed for the mine would be similar in size to the Vale dam that collapsed in Mariana in 2015, causing Brazil's biggest environmental disaster. A report by an expert in geology and mining, Dr. Steven H. Emerman, claims that at least nine million cubic meters of toxic mining waste could reach the Xingu River and travel more than 40 kilometers in two hours, causing irreversible damage. These tailings could contain highly toxic metals, such as cyanide, arsenic, and mercury, which could lead to ecocide of the Xingu River. Furthermore, Belo Sun’s project is only ten kilometers from the main dam on the Xingu River, built for the Belo Monte hydroelectric power plant. The exploration conducted by the mining company expects explosions 24 hours a day to extract gold from the earth, for at least 12 years. There is a risk that the explosions will impact the stability of the Belo Monte dam, as well as that of the Volta Grande project, something that has not been considered until now. Belo Monte itself, in a recent statement, warned of the risks of implementing a minint megaproject in the area. Other studies point to impacts such as changes in the reproductive cycle of fauna, deforestation and/or burning, pollution of water resources, and soil contamination. Volta Grande do Xingu Alliance This is a communiqué by the Volta Grande do Xingu Alliance, which includes organizations and social movements from Brazil and the world. The Alliance supports the defense of life and dignity in the Volta Grande do Xingu region and its permanent protection against infrastructure projects such as the Belo Monte hydroelectric plant and Belo Sun’s mine. The Alliance comprises: AIDA, Amazon Watch, Earthworks, International Rivers, Instituto Socioambiental – ISA, Mining Watch, Movimento Xingu Vivo para Sempre, and Rede Xingu+.
Read more
Court suspends fracking pilot projects, reaffirms right to prior consultation in Colombia
A Colombian judge on Thursday suspended the environmental license for the Kalé fracking pilot project and the environmental permitting process for the Platero fracking pilot project—both located in the municipality of Puerto Wilches, Santander—until the consultation processes with the communities of the region are completed. The court ruling responds to an injunction filed by the Afro-Colombian communities of Puerto Wilches (AFROWILCHES), the Podion Corporation, the José Alvear Restrepo Lawyers Collective, and the Colombia Free of Fracking Alliance, to which AIDA provides legal support. For AIDA, the suspension of the projects represents a victory for the communities of the Magdalena Medio. It acknowledges that fracking cannot advance in the country without their real and effective participation, without a social license, and in a context of threats against the lives of defenders who oppose this technique. "The court decision sends a powerful warning message to other Latin American nations,” said Yeny Rodríguez, AIDA attorney. “Governments currently advancing fracking must respect the principles of environmental democracy, especially since this is a technique and an industry that significantly impacts the environment and public health." "While the guarantee of the right to participation and prior consultation is non-negotiable, fracking continues to be a widely questioned technique, which has been banned worldwide due to the lack of scientific certainty about its possible risks and the very high socio-environmental costs it has caused in the countries that already employ it," she explained. There has been a judicial moratorium on the development of commercial fracking in Colombia since November 2018, when the Council of State declared its provisional suspension at the national level. That decision is based on the precautionary principle, since the regulation of fracking does not contemplate the environmental risks and impacts that its application could cause. A final ruling from the Council of State on the fracking regulation is expected in the coming months. In addition, a second appeal for legal protection filed by more than 10 organizations of fishermen, farmers, women and youth of Puerto Wilches is being considered based on the violation of the right to public participation in the implementation of fracking pilot projects there. The appeal was denied in the first instance, but a favorable ruling is expected in the second. The Colombian Constitutional Court will hear of the decisions of these two judicial proceedings. That court and the Council of State will have the final word on the future of fracking’s implementation in the country. The judges of Colombia, and those across the region, have the power and the opportunity to positively transform development models that promote activities like fracking while systematically damaging the environment and violating human rights. Press contact: Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, [email protected], +5215570522107
Read more