Press Center
World Bank Arbitration Tribunal Refuses to Listen to Those Affected by Mining in Santurbán, Colombia
The World Bank’s International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) has declined to accept an Amicus Curiae that was to be presented by the Committee for the Defense of Water and the Páramo of Santurbán and allied international organizations. Bucaramanga, Bogotá, Washington, Ottawa, Amsterdam. National and international civil society organizations rebuffed the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes’ (ICSID) refusal to accept an Amicus Curiae within the process of the ongoing international arbitration brought forth by Canadian mining company Eco Oro Minerals Corp. against Colombia. The arbitration centre is hearing the ongoing international arbitration put forth by the Canadian company in question against the Andean nation. The company is attempting to pursue its Angostura gold mining project in the Santurbán páramo, located in the northeast of the country. The arbitration questions the decisions taken by the Colombian State to protect its páramos, high mountain wetlands that are a natural source of water for 70% of its inhabitants. The arbitration is being heard at the ICSID, an organization dependent on the World Bank that is in charge of the resolution of disputes between investors and States. Colombia could be condemned to pay $746 million US dollars, an unprecedented sanction for the country. “At a time when Latin American countries are embracing the principles of environmental democracy with the adoption of the Escazú Agreement, ICSID is going in the opposite direction. It is regrettable that in the midst of the regional movement for transparency and participation, ICSID has opted to constrict itself even more. In doing so, it is only generating more anger and distrust, not only in the face of this mechanism, but also in the face of the whole system of Investor-State Arbitration worldwide,” stated Carla García Zendejas, Senior Attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL). “The communities affected by mining in Santurbán have to be heard and can provide crucial elements for the case,” said Carlos Lozano, Senior AIDA Attorney. The organizations consider that the Committee for the Defense of Water and the Páramo of Santurbán has a significant interest in the outcome of the process and that they could have provided expertise to the arbitration tribunal, which would have been helpful for a better decision in the case. In the same way, they urge ICSID to expand citizen participation and make its decision-making processes more transparent. This is transcendental for the public interest of the countries whose governments are subject to its jurisdiction. Find more information on the case here. PRESS CONTACTS: Alix Mancilla, Comité para la Defensa del Agua y el Páramo de Santurbán, [email protected], +57 311 2439273 Carla García Zendejas, CIEL, [email protected], +1 202 374 2550 Carlos Lozano Acosta, AIDA, [email protected], +57 300 56 40 282 Kirsten Francescone, MiningWatch Canada, [email protected], +14373459881 Kristen Genovese, SOMO, [email protected], +31 65 277 3272, Manuel Perez Rocha, Institute for Policy Studies, [email protected] +1 240 838 6623
Read more
Inter-American Commission urges Brazil to address damages to indigenous peoples caused by Belo Monte Dam
Following its visit to Brazil, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights called the attention of authorities and civil society to the urgent need to address repeated violations of the rights of indigenous communities. The Commission highlighted the case of the Mïratu de Paquiçamba community, which has been affected by the construction of the Belo Monte Dam. Rio de Janiero, Brazil. Concluding its visit to the country, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) urged Brazilian authorities and society in general to recognize, address, and quickly resolve repeated violations of the human rights of indigenous communities. The Commission emphasized the case of the Mïratu indigenous community, affected by the environmental damages caused by the construction of the Belo Monte Dam. In Brazil, indigenous communities “suffer from frequent incidents of violence and lack of attention from public services, in addition to increased difficulties and obstacles surrounding claims to their lands,” said Commissioner Antonia Urrejola Noguera, IACHR Rapporteur for Brazil, while presenting the Commission’s preliminary conclusions. “Brazil has been one of the largest violators of the human rights of indigenous communities. In their meeting with the Commission, the Brazilian Indigenous Communities Organization (APIB) presented these cases and expressed its concern over the current political landscape, in which a discourse of hatred and racism has been growing, even among government institutions,” said Luiz Eloy Terena, APIB’s legal advisor. On November 7, the Commission’s delegation visited Mïratu Village, located in the Paquiçamba indigenous region in the state of Pará. Mïratu is one of the indigenous communities affected by the Belo Monte Dam. It was the first time the Commission visited that area. There, the Commission heard testimonies from indigenous people and fishermen, who are fighting to maintain their traditional way of life despite damages including: the death of thousands of fish; the pollution of the Xingú river; forced displacement from their lands without adequate relocation; and the development of culturally inappropriate projects. Village leaders reported that those damages have disproportionately affected women and children. The Commission also heard from representatives of Altamira, the city nearest the dam. “We’d like to highlight the importance of the Commission’s historic visit to Mïratu Village, and recognize the negative impacts that the Belo Monte Dam has had on the human rights of the people of the Xingu River basin,” said Astrid Puentes Riaño, co-director of the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). “It is now up to the government of Brazil to adopt the decisions and recommendations of the Commission, complying with the rule of law and protecting the people of their country.” During the visit, those affected by the dam were especially concerned over next year’s scheduled implementation of a plan to manage the flow of the Xingú River. Known as a consensus hydrogram, it would divert the water that indigenous and riverine communities, as well as plants and animals, rely on to survive. “The commissioners had the opportunity to confirm the severity of the impacts and the understand the urgent need to revise the criteria used to define the residual flow that the Xingu must maintain in order to guarantee the subsistence and culture of indigenous and riverine communities in the Vuelta Grande region,” said Bivany Rojas from the Socio-environmental Institute (ISA). In 2011, communities along the Xingu—represented by AIDA, the Paranese Society for the Defense of Human Rights (SDDH), and Justiça Global—filed a complaint against Brazil, bringing the case in front of the Commission. That same year, the Commission granted precautionary measures to affected indigenous communities. The case formally began in December 2015, and participating organizations presented final arguments in May of this year. Based on those and the arguments put forward by the the Brazilian State, the Commission will publish a report concluding whether human rights violations occurred from the construction of the Belo Monte Dam. They may then decide to issue recommendations for Brazil to remedy those damages. Demonstrating progress and a respect for the rights of indigenous communities—in cases like the Xucuru, the Xingu, and Guyraroka peoples—represents an important opportunity to strengthen rule of law and embrace progress in Brazil. press contacts: Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, [email protected], +521 5570522107 Isabel Harari (Brazil), ISA, [email protected], +5561998261213
Read more
UN Committee recommends Argentina “reconsider” the use of fracking
The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of the United Nations expressed its concern about Argentina’s intention to exploit unconventional oil and gas reserves in Vaca Muerta, one of the world’s largest shale deposits. It recommended the goverment reconsider those plans to ensure compliance with the nation’s international commitments on climate change. Geneva, Switzerland. The Committee of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of the United Nations recommended that Argentina reconsider its plans for the large-scale exploitation of shale gas and oil in Vaca Muerta, one of the world’s largest deposits of unconventional hydrocarbons. The Committee expressed its concern after reviewing the nation’s fourth report to the Universal Periodic Review on human rights, encouraging the government to reconsider the use of fracking in order to ensure compliance with its international obligations on climate change. "The Committee is concerned that this hydraulic fracturing project contradicts the State’s commitments to the Paris Agreement, and would have a negative impact on global warming and the enjoyment of economic and social rights by the global population and future generations," read the concluding observations on Argentina's report, approved by the Committee at its 64th session, which took place from September 24 to October 12, 2018. The Committee urged the State "to promote alternative and renewable energies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and establish national targets with benchmarks defined over time." The Committee also expressed concern about the lack of adequate evaluation of fracking’s negative impacts on the environment and human health, and about the absence of prior consultation with affected local populations. In that sense, the Committee entrusted the Argentine State to: "... adopt a regulatory framework for fracking that includes assessments of its impact in all provinces, preceded by consultations with affected communities, and with appropriate documentation of its effects on air and water pollution, radioactive emissions, risks to health and safety at work, its effects on public health, noise pollution, light and stress, potential seismic activity, threats to agriculture, soil quality, and the climate system." The UN Universal Periodic Review is a process that offers each State the opportunity to declare what measures it has adopted to improve the human rights situation in the country and to comply with its obligations in this area. Its objective is to improve that situation and address human rights violations wherever they occur. PRESS CONTACTS: Víctor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, [email protected], +5215570522107 Fernando Cabrera, Opsur, [email protected], +5492995864313
Read more
Organizations request Mexico list parrotfish as protected species
Parrotfish are vital to the health of coral reefs, and the Mexican State has an obligation to protect them. In a letter to the government, AIDA outlined the international obligations Mexico has to preserve its coral reefs, requesting that ten species of parrotfish be included in the nation’s list of protected species—a proposal spearheaded by the Healthy Reefs Initiative. Mexico City. Using arguments based in international law and knowledge of environmental treaties, the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) requested that the Mexican government include ten species of parrotfish in the national registry of protected species, under Official Mexican Law 059, which is currently being updated. AIDA made the request through a letter to the National Advisory Committee for the Normalization of the Environment and Natural Resources, in support of a proposal the Healthy Reefs for Healthy People Initiative made in September in coordination with Casa Wayuu, the Kanan Kay Alliance and the Mexican Center for Environmental Law (CEMDA). “The species of parrotfish we are trying to protect play a vital role in the survival of coral reefs because they feed on algae which otherwise deprive the coral of light and oxygen,” said AIDA attorney Camilo Thomson. “Populations of these fish have declined drastically due to habitat degradation, pollution and climate change. Studies done by the Health Reefs Initiative, among others, have shown that 60 percent of the coral reefs in the Mexican Caribbean are in either poor or critical condition.” The organizations are calling for the following species to be listed under some category of risk in Official Mexican Law 059: the stoplight parrotfish (Sparisoma viride), the rainbow parrotfish (Scarus guacamaia), the blue parrotfish (Scarus coeruleus), the midnight parrotfish (Scarus coelestinus), the queen parrotfish (Scarus vetula), the princess parrotfish (Scarus taeniopterus), the striped parrotfish (Scarus iseri), the redband parrotfish (Sparisoma aurofrenatum), the redtail parrotfish (Sparisoma rubipinne), and the yellowtail parrotfish (Sparisoma chrysopterum). The letter outlines the treaties and conventions that oblige the Mexican State to adequately fight threats to species requiring special protection—species like herbivorous fish, which are vital for the health of Caribbean reefs and other marine ecosystems. These agreements include the Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment in the Wider Caribbean Region (also known as the Cartagena Convention), the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Ramsar Convention, the Convention concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage, the Tulum Declaration, and the International Coral Reef Initiative. “The letter also mentions the Advisory Opinion on human rights and the environment issued by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights,” Thomson added. “In that decision, the Court strengthens States’ obligations to protect human rights and acknowledges the close relationship that has with environmental protection.” Despite serving as fish hatcheries and natural barriers against hurricanes—among other key functions—coral reefs are very fragile and vulnerable to climate change, the consequences of which include ocean acidification, sea level rise and algal blooms. The latter are caused by untreated or inadequately treated wastewater being pumped into the Caribbean, and other forms of marine pollution. “The most recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned that the warming of the planet’s average temperature by more than 1.5 degrees Celsius would result in the destruction of reefs,” explained Melina Soto, Mexico coordinator for the Healthy Reefs Initiative. “It is therefore urgent States adopt adequate measures to preserve coral reefs, and one way to do that is through the protection of herbivorous fish.” Find more information about the case here. PRESS CONTACTS: Victor Quintanilla (Mexico City), AIDA, [email protected], +521 5570522107 Marisol Rueda Flores (Playa del Carmen), Healthy Reefs for Healthy People, [email protected],+521 9848770815
Read more
Civil society warns Inter-American Commission of human rights violations caused by fracking in Latin America
Boulder, Colorado. Representatives of communities and organizations from across Latin America testified before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights this week on the impacts that hydraulic fracturing (fracking) has on human rights and the environment. The hearing—responding to a petition signed by more than 126 organizations from 11 countries of the Americas—was held in Boulder, Colorado this week as part of the Commission’s 169th period of sessions. The principal requests to the Commission, and the Rapporteurs from various countries, were to urge the States to adopt efficient and opportune measures to prevent human rights violations resulting from the exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons, and to apply the precautionary principal in the face of fracking’s environmental damages. “In Latin America, fracking been carried out without informing or adequately consulting the affected populations, thereby violating their right to information, participation, prior consultation and consent,” explained Liliana Ávila, Senior Attorney with the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). “Fracking’s demand for water competes with the use of water for human consumption, and the contamination it causes in the water, soil and air seriously impacts the right to a healthy environment and compromises the effective enjoyment of other rights—including a dignified life, personal integrity, health, food, water and adequate housing.” At the hearing, it was emphasized that women disproportionately suffer the impacts of fracking due to potential harm to their reproductive health, and since women are traditionally responsible for collecting water for use in their homes. Referring to the experience of the Mapuche communities of Argentina, Santiago Cané of the Environment and Natural Resources Foundation (FARN) stressed, “Fracking produces acts of violence against those who defend the environment and their rights.” “Institutionally, we can talk about the criminalization of social protest as one form of intimidation to eliminate the resistance to fracking projects,” he explained. “The prosecution of criminal cases against communities leaders that oppose the development of fracking has become an institutional media campaign that seeks to promote the idea that Mapuche communities are part of a terrorist group.” In Mexico, “specifically in the municipality of Papantla, Veracruz—which according to freedom of information requests is the city with the greatest number of fracking pools in the country—where the population is primarily the Totonac people, this exploitation technique has led to the diversion of springs and the drying up of artisanal wells. Many communities have lost their natural sources of water and have seen their health compromised and their living conditions deteriorate,” explained Alejandra Jiménez of the Mexican Alliance Against Fracking. Dorys Gutiérrez, of the Colombian organization Corporation for the Defense of Water, Territory and Ecosystems, noted that: “In Europe, 18 nations have applied the precautionary principle to prohibit or restrict this practice and in Australia, four of the eight territories have bans or moratoria in place. If fracking is so beneficial, why has it been so widely rejected in so many places?” According to data compiled by the Latin American Alliance on Fracking, roughly 5,000 fracking wells exist across the region. About 2,000 of those wells are found in Argentina; more than 3,350 are found in Mexico; and in Chile, according to official data, 182 wells have been approved, primarily for the island of Tierra del Fuego. Despite the technique’s expansion across the region, there has also been progress in banning or imposing restrictions on fracking in three states of the United States, in Uruguay, in the Argentine province of Entre Ríos, and in more than 300 municipalities in Brazil. Fracking’s advance is harmful to human rights, and represents a threat to the consolidation of the legal framework promoted by the Inter-American Human Rights System, which includes the obligations of States and the international protection of human rights and the environment. PRESS CONTACTS: Victor Quintanilla (MExico), AIDA, [email protected], +521 5570522107 Arturo Contreras (in Boulder, Colorado), +521 5533320505
Read more
Inter-American Commission to analyze fracking’s impacts on human rights
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights will hold an informative hearing on October 3, 2018 to better understand the situation of fracking in the Americas and the human rights violations it’s causing. The hearing is being held in response to a request brought forth by 126 Latin American organizations, united in the Latin American Alliance on Fracking. The hearing will take place in Boulder, Colorado during the Commission’s 169th period of sessions. In it, human rights defenders and representatives of affected communities will present detailed information on the documented human rights impacts, as well as the potential risks, of fracking in Latin America. The Alliance seeks to propose a series of recommendations to the Commission and governments of the region in order to guarantee human rights when faced with the exploitation of unconventional hydrocarbon reserves. According to the hearing request, there are approximately 5,000 fracking wells throughout Latin America. In Argentina, there are roughly 2,000 wells. In Chile, according to official data, 182 wells have been approved, the large majority in Tierra del Fuego. In Mexico, there are more than 3,350 fracking wells, although the signatory organizations indicated there are challenges in terms of access to this information. In Brazil and Colombia, contracts have been signed that allow for exploration and exploitation. In Bolivia, prospecting and sample studies of unconventional deposits have begun. Organizations from Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Chile, Ecuador, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay signed the request for a hearing before the Commission in July. “Fracking’s advance in Latin America is being carried out blindly because neither the chemicals used, nor their synergistic effects, nor the actual and potential risks, nor the effectiveness of mitigation measures are known with any certainty,” explained Claudia Velarde, attorney with the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). “What is known is the damage fracking causes to the environment, the quantity and quality of water, and the impacts it has on health and human rights.” While fracking is promoted across Latin America, various nations, states and provinces of Europe, the Americas and Oceania have banned the technique due to the negative impacts it has had on the environment and public health. The request to the Commission emphasizes, “none of the nations where fracking has been implemented have a comprehensive knowledge of the irreversible damage it causes to the environment and the lives of individuals and communities. However, abundant scientific evidence exists on fracking’s negative impacts due to the extensive use of the technique in the United States.” Follow news from the hearing with the hashtag #AméricaSinFracking PRESS CONTACT Victor Quintanilla, AIDA (Mexico), [email protected], +521 5570522107
Read more
Calling on Chile to stop salmon industry’s impact on Patagonia
AIDA alerted six international treaties to the damages the salmon industry is causing to Chilean Patagonia, and requested that they visit the Magallanes region to investigate the impacts and urge the Chilean government to protect the region. Santiago, Chile. In an Urgent Alert to international authorities, the Interamerican Association of Environmental Defense (AIDA) requested that experts visit the Magallanes region of Chilean Patagonia—where the expansion of the salmon industry is causing serious environmental damage—and asked them to urge the government to adopt appropriate measures to address them. “These six treaties were signed and ratified by Chile to protect its natural wealth, including the endemic species of the Magallanes region,” said Florencia Ortuzar, AIDA attorney. “The government is violating these agreements by failing to prevent the salmon industry from damaging the country’s marine environments.” The document details the principal damages caused by the salmon farms in Magallanes, among them: contamination of the seabed from large amounts of fish feces, excess chemical waste, and the over-saturation of waters with fish, all of which create oxygen-free dead zones where marine life cannot survive. The alert was sent to authorities in charge of the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, the International Whaling Commission, the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and the Antarctic Treaty. The situation was also reported to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the World Health Organization. The Magallanes region is home to many protected species, including the blue whale, the sperm whale, the Magellanic penguin, the elephant seal, the leatherback turtle, the Southern dolphin and the Chilean dolphin. A remote and pristine area, Magallanes is poorly studied and it is thus virtually impossible to understand the consequences of the industry’s current and potential impacts. “More than half the farms operating in Magallanes are causing a total or partial lack of oxygen in the waters,” explained Ortuzar. “This demonstrates that the salmon concessions are being granted without the scientific support needed to guarantee they won’t cause environmental damage.” Another problem raised in the alert is the excessive use of antibiotics in Chilean salmon farms—higher than that of any other salmon-producing nation. This excessive use provokes antimicrobial resistance in humans, a problem that has been recognized by the World Health Organization as a serious threat to global public health. In the alert, AIDA requested the international authorities: support the Chilean State in the investigation of the salmon industry’s real and potential impacts on Patagonia; remind Chile of its obligations under the treaties; investigate the damage described; and, when needed, request the application of sanctions and the suspension or cancellation of concessions in Magallanes. Consult the Urgent Alert. Find more information on the case here. press contact Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, [email protected], +521 5570522107
Read more
In Xingu management plan, Brazil leaves communities without water
The proposed Xingu River management plan puts at risk the people, plants and animals of the Amazon region. AIDA requested that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights urge Brazil to stop the plan and establish a socially and environmentally appropriate alternative. Washington, D.C. and Altamira, Brazil. By authorizing the construction of the Belo Monte Dam in the heart of the Amazon, the Brazilian government endorsed a management plan for the flow of the Xingu River that would leave the indigenous and riverine communities of the area without the water they need to survive. The plan is in a testing phase but is expected to be implemented next year, once all the turbines of the hydroelectric plant are installed. The Interamerican Association of Environment Defense (AIDA) sent a report to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights detailing the serious socio-environmental risks of the plan. In it, we requested that the Commission urge Brazil to stop the plan’s implementation and create an alternative plan that guarantees biodiversity and protects the communities’ ways of life. “The authorized plan for the management of the river’s flow threatens the existence of indigenous and riverine communities, and places at risk of extinction the fish and the forests—natural resources on which the physical and cultural lives of the communities depend,” said Liliana Ávila, Senior AIDA Attorney. The plan, called a consensual hydrogram, establishes the volume of water that will pass through a specific part of the river, called the Vuelta Grande, and the part that will be diverted for energy production. It is intended to artificially reproduce the natural flow of the river in times of flood and drought. Norte Energía, the consortium in charge of the dam, proposes an average minimum flow rate of 4,000 cubic meters per second over the course of a year, and 8,000 cubic meters per second for the following year, beginning in 2019. It proposes a minimum flow rate of 700 cubic meters per second for the dry season. The report sent to the Commission, however, details scientific and social evidence that demonstrates that these water levels are significantly lower than the historical river flow and do not guarantee that fish and alluvial forests can survive the proposed reduction in the short- and medium-term. The evidence—which includes information from both the Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources and community monitoring—also shows that some aquatic species, such as chelonians, can only feed and reproduce with minimum flows of 13,000 cubic meters per second in times of flooding, and that the volume proposed for the dry season could make the river unnavigable. “The management plan did not take into account the monitoring done by the Juruna people in collaboration with the Federal University of the State of Pará and the Socio-environmental Institute (ISA),” said AIDA attorney Marcella Ribeiro. “In 2016, with water levels higher than those proposed, communities were already reporting the mass die-off of fish.” AIDA sent the report to the Commission as part of a formal complaint against the Brazilian State for the human rights violations caused by the dam’s construction. In May, together with partner organizations, we presented our final arguments in the case, evidencing damages already caused, including the forced displacement of indigenous and riverine communities, the massive death of fish, differentiated damages to men and women, and threats to the survival of the communities. Find more information on the case here. press contacts Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, [email protected], +521 5570522107 Isabel Harari (Brazil), ISA, [email protected], +5561998261213
Read more
Argentina’s approval of fracking wells violates international obligations
The authorization of four fracking wells within the Vaca Muerta shale deposit poses a risk to vital water sources and violates the rights of Mapuche communities. In support of an amparo filed to invalidate the project’s approval, AIDA presented evidence detailing Argentina’s failure to comply with international environmental and human rights obligations. Mendoza, Argentina. Argentina violated international environmental and human rights obligations when it authorized the development of four fracking wells in indigenous territory. The wells would damage vital water sources and violate the rights of Mapuche communities, AIDA explained in an amicus brief presented before the Supreme Court of Mendoza Province. The brief supports an amparo seeking to invalidate the project’s approval, filed by the Environment and Natural Resources Foundation (FARN, for its initials in Spanish). “Fracking was authorized in Mendoza without any environmental impact assessment,” explained AIDA Attorney Claudia Velarde. “In fact, the project was presented for authorization as ‘infrastructure adaptation’ and the environmental authority granted the permits in a record time of just six days.” The wells are located within Vaca Muerta, the largest non-conventional deposit of shale gas in Latin America. Mapuche indigenous communities—recognized by the National Institute of Indigenous Affairs—live in the project area and, as such, have the right to prior consultation; operators must receive their free, prior and informed consent for any activity affecting their territory. The energy company El Trebol S.A. failed to recognize that right when assessing the project. As a result, the project’s authorization violates Convention 169 of the International Labor Organization, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People—all international standards recognized by Argentina. “The chemicals used in fracking can contaminate both surface and groundwater, including, in this case, those of the Llancanelo lagoon, a wetland of international importance under the Ramsar Convention, a treaty ratified by the government of Argentina,” said Velarde. “The site is a zone of passage and rest for more than 130 species of resident and migratory birds.” In addition, fracking activities require large amounts of water, while Mendoza has for years suffered from drought, a problem only aggravated by climate change. Finally, the brief emphasizes that there is neither detailed geological data of the zone nor quality information on the dynamics of the groundwater. “Faced with this scientific uncertainty, authorities have an obligation to apply the precautionary principle,” Velarde explained. “An activity as potentially harmful as fracking must be rejected unless those seeking to implement it can prove that it will not cause serious and irreversible damage to the environment.” Press contact: Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, [email protected], +5215570522107
Read more
World’s first legally binding treaty to protect the high seas: Landmark UN negotiations open
New York. Treaty negotiations to conserve and protect nearly two thirds of the ocean open today at the United Nations (UN) in what is widely regarded as the greatest opportunity in a generation to turn the tide on ocean degradation and biodiversity loss. Following over a decade of discussions at the UN, the two-week Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) is the first of a series of four negotiating sessions through 2020 for a new legally-binding treaty to protect marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction*, commonly known as the high seas. The ocean beyond 200 nautical miles (370 kilometres) from a country’s shorelines is considered international waters – “the high seas” - and is globally shared. There is no overarching law in place to safeguard its biodiversity or its vital role in provisioning services – such as generating oxygen and regulating the climate. “The high seas cover half our planet and are vital to the functioning of the whole ocean and all life on Earth. The current high seas governance system is weak, fragmented and unfit to address the threats we now face in the 21st century from climate change, illegal and overfishing, plastics pollution and habitat loss. This is an historic opportunity to protect the biodiversity and functions of the high seas through legally binding commitments” said Peggy Kalas, Coordinator of the High Seas Alliance, a partnership of 40+ non-governmental organisations and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The ocean’s key role in mitigating climate change, which includes absorbing 90% of the extra heat and 26% of the excess carbon dioxide created by human sources, has had a devastating effect on the ocean itself. Managing the multitude of other anthropogenic stressors exerted on it will increase its resilience to climate change and ocean acidification and protect unique marine ecosystems, many of which are still unexplored and undiscovered. Because these are international waters, the conservation measures needed can only be put into place via a global treaty. Professor Alex Rogers of Oxford University who has provided evidence to inform the UN process towards a treaty said: “The half of our planet which is high seas is protecting terrestrial life from the worst impacts of climate change. Yet we do too little to safeguard that or to protect the life within the ocean which is intrinsic to our collective survival. Protecting the biodiversity of the high seas by bringing good governance and law to the whole ocean is the single most important thing we can do to turn the tide for the blue heart of our planet.” Through the UN, states will discuss how to protect and conserve the high seas by establishing: Marine Protected Areas (MPAs): MPAs are widely acknowledged as essential for building ocean resilience, but without a treaty there is no mechanism to enable their creation on the high seas. Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs): Although some activities are partially regulated in some areas of the high seas, there is no legal framework for conducting EIAs to guard against potential environmental harm. Benefit sharing and technological transfer: Many countries are concerned that they will not benefit from research into high seas species and will lose out on potentially vast new ocean genetic resources, such as discoveries of marine genetic resources (MGRs) that could provide new pharmaceuticals, nutraceuticals and other uses. The negotiations will also aim at improving mechanisms to build capacity and transfer technology in developing countries relating to the high seas. Gladys Martínez, senior attorney of the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA)’s Marine Program, said: “We’re hopeful that this intergovernmental conference will achieve important advances toward the creation of a treaty for the conservation and sustainable use of high seas biodiversity. We’re particularly pleased to see the commitment with which Latin American nations are approaching this important negotiation.” Notes to editors: * ‘Areas beyond national jurisdiction’ means the areas of ocean outside the EEZs and continental shelves of individual states i.e. in most cases beyond 200 nautical miles offshore. It includes, as well as the high seas, the deep sea Area as defined in Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (known as UNCLOS), which is the deep seabed beyond the continental shelves of coastal States. For more information see http://highseasalliance.org The process so far: Treaty timeline Press contacts Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), [email protected], +521 5570522107 Mirella von Lindenfels (at the UN during the negotiations), + 44 7717 844 352
Read more