Press Release

Accountability and Transparency, Human Rights, Indigenous Rights

Report reveals shocking rights violations by Canadian corporations in Latin America

Geneva - A groundbreaking report titled "Unmasking Canada: Rights Violations Across Latin America" was unveiled at the United Nations Universal Periodic Review Process (UPR) pre-session in Geneva, spanning from August 28 to September 1, 2023. This in-depth investigation highlights extensive human rights and environmental breaches by Canadian companies in Latin America and the Caribbean. Compiled through the collaboration of over 50 civil society organizations, the report implicates 37 Canadian projects across nine countries in the region. Of these, 32 projects have been found responsible for environmental rights infringements, including 105 oil spills in Peru's Block 192, directly linked to Frontera Energy. Additionally, the right to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent was violated in 26 projects, exemplified by dubious practices in Ecuador's Warintza project managed by Solaris Resources Inc. Violent confrontations tied to 16 projects are also highlighted, with a notable incident in Peru in July 2023, where 20 individuals were injured. While Canada positions itself as "climate forward," this report challenges such a portrayal, emphasizing Canada's protection of extractive industries that are responsible for significant human rights and environmental harm. In response to these findings and anticipating Canada's UPR on November 10, 2023, the report advocates for UN member states to impose legally binding resolutions on Canada, compelling the nation to address corporate misconduct overseas. Mauricio Terena, Legal Coordinator from Brazil’s Association of Indigenous People (APIB), said: "We have come here to denounce the involvement of Canadian companies in human rights violations in Brazil, particularly the case of the Belo Sun mining company in Pará, which aims to establish the country's largest open-pit gold mine. While Canada portrays itself as a defender of human rights and the environment, its actions contradict this narrative, especially when infringing upon the rights of indigenous peoples in Brazil. The discrepancy becomes evident when we realize that Canada has not signed the ILO's Convention 169. Therefore, we hope that the states with which we are in dialogue recognize this reality and urge Canada to reassess the operations of its corporations, seeking tangible action in defense of indigenous peoples and traditional communities". Addressing the UPR's function, where every four years UN member states review each other's human rights records, Latin American civil society representatives presented new recommendations for Canada. These recommendations underscore the need for Canada to introduce binding and comprehensive legislation centered on due diligence and corporate accountability. This encompasses the oversight of financial institutions and Canadian corporations throughout their global supply chains, aiming to prevent, mitigate, and penalize corporate misdeeds while ensuring victims of such practices overseas can seek justice and full reparation. "We hope that the UPR (Universal Periodic Review) process will establish itself as another strategy in our defense of indigenous peoples' rights, serving as a tool for the protection of human, indigenous, and environmental rights. It is essential to acknowledge that corporations involved in such violations are committing criminal acts. These actions should not be viewed merely as isolated incidents, but rather on a broader scale, as violating indigenous rights impacts all of humanity. Thus, beyond national and international laws, these transgressions should be seen from a more comprehensive perspective. It is crucial for states to commit, within the UN framework, to join a global mechanism where they recognize the need to monitor and mutually hold each other accountable for actions that uphold human, indigenous, and environmental rights", said Maria Judite "Kari" Guajajara, Legal Advisor at the National Indigenous Organization of the Brazilian Amazon (COIAB). This isn't the first instance of Canada facing allegations within the United Nations Universal System due to the activities of its corporations abroad. Six recommendations were directed at Canada during the 3rd cycle of the Periodic Review. These addressed, among other concerns, Canadian businesses' vital assurance and protection of human rights. Nevertheless, even after pledging to meet these recommendations, Canada consistently failed to fulfill its extraterritorial obligations, neglecting to take effective action to supervise corporate activities domestically and internationally. Gisela Hurtado, Advocacy Manager at Amazon Watch, commented: "Our report unveils the disturbing reality behind Canada's corporate endeavors in Latin America. While Canada boasts of ethical business conduct, the documented evidence reveals a starkly contrasting picture – one where profit is prioritized over people and the environment. Urgent change is paramount." The report's presentation in Geneva was spearheaded by a delegation that included Mauricio Terena from APIB; Maria Judite "Kari" Guajajara from COIAB; Josefa de Oliveira, a Popular Educator with Movimento Xingu Vivo Para Sempre; Lorena Aranha Curuaia, Vice President of the Iawá Community; ; and Brayan Mojanajinsoy Pasos, General Secretary of the Association of Indigenous Councils of the Municipality of Villagarzón Putumayo (ACIMVIP). The delegation was further supported by representatives from organizations including Amazon Watch, AIDA (Regional), Earthworks (US) Gaia (Colombia), and Ambiente y Sociedad (Colombia).   Short summary involving Canadian companies involved in rights violations highlighted in the report   1. Frontera Energy in Lote 192 in Peru: - Over 2,000 sites contaminated, affecting 26 Amazonian indigenous communities. - Proposed activity closure plan doesn’t include reparations for affected communities.   2. Mineradora Argentina Gold SRL (joint venture between Barrick Gold and Shandong Gold): - Responsible for at least five toxic substance leakages, including cyanide and arsenic, into the Jáchal River in Argentina from the Veladero mine. - The project is in violation of the Glacier Law due to its location in a glacial zone and affects the UNESCO recognized biodiversity heritage site, the San Guilhermo Reserve.   3. Belo Sun's Volta Grande project in Brazil: - Cumulative impacts with the Belo Monte hydroelectric dam, located less than 10 km away from the prospected mining site; - Armed security forces hired by the Canadian mining company to monitor local leaders and hindering their freedom of movement; - Utter disrespect to Free, Prior and Informed Consent of Indigenous and riverine communities; - Imminent and irreversible risks of an environmental tragedy if toxic waste spills into the Xingu River due to a potential dam break, given the lack of sysmic and tailings dam safety studies. - Direct impact on communities, their traditional livelihoods, and local ecosystems.   4. The Mina Varadero in Chile: - Contaminated water sources with mercury, impacting rural populations and children.   5. ISAGEN - Brookfield Asset Management's Hidrosogamoso dam in Colombia: - Significant harm to local ecosystems and communities.   6. American Lithium's mining projects (Falchani, Macusani, and Quelccaya) in Peru: - Regularly release toxic residues, affecting over 700,000 people and contaminating the Lake Titicaca and Amazon River basins.   7. Solaris Resources Inc.'s Warintza mining project in Ecuador: - Ignored the territorial rights of the Shuar Arutam indigenous people and adopted divisive tactics.   8. Mining project of Ixtaca in Mexico: - Suspended due to violations of indigenous rights.   9. El Pato II mining project in Guatemala: - Affected the Poqomam Maya and mestizo communities without proper prior consultation.   10. Libero Copper's Mocoa mining project in Colombia: - Directly harmed the ancestral territory of the Inga people, violating their rights.   11. Cosigo Resources LTD's Machado gold extraction project in Colombia: - Severely impacted sacred indigenous sites in the Yaigojé Apaporis territory.   12. Barrick Gold's Pueblo Viejo mine in the Dominican Republic: - Forced the displacement of 65 local families due to the El Llagal waste dam.   13. Mining projects of La Plata by Atico Mining Corporation and Las Naves by Curimining S.A. (a subsidiary of Adventus Mining Corporation) and **Salazar Resources Limited in Ecuador: - Tried legalizing their operations despite violating national and international human rights laws, leading to confrontations and injuries.   14. Petrotal's Lote 95 in Peru: - Protests demanding community rights resulted in several deaths by police forces guarding the oil field.   15. Equinox Gold in Brazil: - Concealed data regarding their operations and impacts, including a dam break. - 4,000 of people directly impacted by toxic waste resulted from the dam break that contaminated local Amazonian rivers, violating the right to a clean environment and adequate access to drinking water. - Criminalization of local community leaders that protested for the right to water.    16. Gran Tierra Energy in Ecuador: - Conducted explorations without proper information dissemination in the Charapa, Chanangué, and Iguana blocks.  

Read more
Coral reefs, Oceans

Mexican environmental authority violates Mexico’s highest court and international obligations when reissuing a permit for a port expansion that threatens the Veracruz Reef System

In a legal brief, AIDA and Earthjustice argue the Secretary of the Environment failed to properly evaluate the environmental impact of the project to the reef, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, as required by Mexico’s highest court.   Mexico City, Mexico – Today, AIDA (Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense) and Earthjustice filed a brief with the Fifth District Court of Veracruz to help protect the Veracruz Reef System from the Veracruz port expansion project. When reauthorizing the project, the Secretary of the Environment and Natural Resources (Semarnat) not only failed to comply with a ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, but also ignored Mexico’s international obligations regarding environmental protection and human rights, including the human right to a healthy environment guaranteed in the Mexican Constitution. This was demonstrated by AIDA and Earthjustice in a legal brief (Amicus Curiae or "Friend of the Court") filed before the Fifth District Court of Veracruz. In it they request that the court -- which is in charge of determining whether the Supreme Court’s ruling was complied with or not -- establish contempt and force Semarnat to re-examine the project based on the environmental impact assessment procedure required by the high court. "The authorities must comply with the Supreme Court ruling and protect this internationally-recognized natural treasure of Mexico.  The human right to a healthy environment cannot be ignored," said Guillermo Zúñiga, a Veracruz native and Earthjustice attorney.  "The reef not only hosts the greatest biodiversity of species in the central region of the Gulf of Mexico, but also helps mitigate the impact of storm surges and hurricanes. The people who grew up here, as I did, and who live here now, know the value of this sanctuary where land and sea harmonize in unity." On February 9, 2022, residents of Veracruz won a victory before the Supreme Court in an amparo action filed to defend the Veracruz Reef System -- the largest reef in the Gulf of Mexico -- and its environmental services against the Veracruz port expansion project. The Supreme Court ordered the revocation of the permits by determining that Semarnat, by approving the project, violated the right to a healthy environment of the people of Veracruz. Despite the ecological, cultural, and economic importance of the Veracruz Reef System, the environmental authority had authorized the port expansion in a fragmented way, dividing the project into 15 permits and diluting its true impact. In addition, it completely excluded from its analysis a non-emerging reef ("La Loma") located in the area of the Veracruz Reef System National Park. In its ruling, the Supreme Court ordered the environmental authority to reevaluate the project in an integral, holistic and complete manner. In addition, it ordered that the new evaluation be made in accordance with the elements that make up the right to a healthy environment, as well as the principles of prevention and precaution, enshrined in international law. It also requested the support of the National Council of Natural Protected Areas and the International Wetlands Committee of the Ramsar Convention to design a protection scheme for the Veracruz Reef System. "Right now, the court has the opportunity to confirm the transformative effect of the Supreme Court's ruling and set a valuable precedent for the real protection, not just on paper, of Veracruz's reefs and the universal right to a healthy environment," said Sandra Moguel, an attorney with AIDA's Ecosystems Program. "Including the international authorities of the Ramsar Convention would mean strengthening the project's environmental impact assessment with technical knowledge and transparency." As demonstrated in the brief, by granting a second permit to the project -- on December 30, 2022 -- Semarnat failed to comply with the Court's ruling and the Mexican State's obligations because: It did not require a new environmental impact study -- mandatory for projects of this size under international law and national legislation -- to analyze the cumulative impacts of all segments of the original project. On the contrary, the environmental authority based its assessment on the original deficient statements. Even so, it left three of the original segments out of its analysis. It failed to submit its new assessment to a public consultation nor did publish new information on the impacts of the project before authorizing it again. In this way, it ignored the rights of the people of Veracruz to public participation and access to information in environmental decision-making. Semarnat has not yet requested the support of the National Council of Natural Protected Areas or the International Wetlands Committee. The participation of this committee is of particular importance due to its experience and technical knowledge in the protection of protected areas and wetlands.   The Veracruz Reef System is a Natural Protected Area designated under national legislation, a wetland of international importance under the international Ramsar Convention, and a UNESCO World Heritage Site.   AIDA is an international non-profit organization that has been protecting the human right to a healthy environment in the Americas for 25 years. Earthjustice is the premier nonprofit public interest environmental law organization in the United States. We wield the power of law and the strength of partnership to protect people's health, to preserve magnificent places and wildlife, to advance clean energy, and to combat climate change. press contacts Sandra Moguel, AIDA, [email protected] (Spanish and English) Kathryn McGrath, Earthjustice, [email protected] (English) Guillermo Zúñiga, Earthjustice, [email protected] (Spanish)  

Read more
Human Rights

Right to a healthy environment global coalition wins UN Human Rights Prize

Manila (PHP), Geneva (CH), Casablanca (MAR), New York (US), Mexico City (MX), Buenos Aires (ARG) — Today, the Global Coalition of Civil Society, Indigenous Peoples, Social Movements, and Local Communities for the Universal Recognition of the Human Right to a Clean, Healthy, and Sustainable Environment was recognized as one of the recipients of the prestigious 2023 United Nations Human Rights Prize. The coalition is awarded for its essential role in advocating for the recognition of the right to a healthy environment by the UN General Assembly (UNGA) in July 2022. The UN Human Rights Prize is awarded once every five years to several recipients at a time. This year is the first time that it has been granted to a global coalition. The prize will be presented in New York on December 10, which also marks the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, making this recognition even more special.  This achievement was only possible thanks to tireless efforts that began decades ago and resulted in thousands of people from all across the globe joining forces to achieve a milestone: the recognition by the United Nations of the human right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment. First and foremost, the award highlights the importance of collaborating to advance the much-needed protection of our planet and fulfillment of human rights. Alone, no organization, movement, or person would have been able to achieve the universal recognition of the right to a healthy environment. Together, a diverse global coalition made this a reality.  Furthermore, the prize recognizes the need to protect participatory spaces for everyone. As civic spaces are worryingly shrinking and many human rights and environmental defenders are under attack worldwide, the award sends a strong reminder: It is essential to respect and strengthen spaces for participation and collaboration. The protection of civic spaces and the respect and support for all human rights defenders is essential for the effective implementation of this newly recognized right. The right also is an integral component of environmental justice and democracy and provides a seamless path to protecting the rights of future generations. This announcement arrives just a few days ahead of the July 28 anniversary of the UNGA’s recognition of the human right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment. Since then, millions have continued to experience the cumulative and accelerating impacts of the triple planetary crisis of biodiversity loss, climate change, and pollution, exacerbated by systemic inequalities, that is contributing to ongoing violations of the right to a healthy environment around the world. This prize emphasizes that today more than ever, States must make this right a reality. It is both a recognition and a call to action for governments, businesses, institutions, and people worldwide to ensure that the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is effectively guaranteed and legally protected so that it can be enjoyed by all.  Read the reactions from the members of the coalition here. press contact: Víctor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, [email protected], +521 5570522107  

Read more
Oceans

Agreement reached to advance High Seas Treaty

New Treaty agreed to protect half the planet but formal adoption still required.   Late this evening governments meeting at the United Nations in New York reached agreement on key substantive issues for a new treaty to protect high seas marine life. To ensure this hard won progress is not lost, The High Seas Alliance is calling for the UN to conclude the formalities of adoption as soon as possible in the final resumed session. "Following a two week long rollercoaster ride of negotiations and super-hero efforts in the last 48 hours, governments reached agreement on key issues that will advance protection and better management of marine biodiversity in the high seas," said Rebecca Hubbard, Director of the High Seas Alliance. The high seas, the area of ocean that lies beyond countries’ national waters, is the largest habitat on Earth and home to millions of species. With currently just over 1% of the high seas protected, the new treaty will provide a pathway to establish marine protected areas in these waters. It is also a key tool to help deliver the recently agreed Kunming-Montreal target of at least 30% protection of the world’s ocean by 2030 that was just agreed in December- the minimum level of protection scientists warn is necessary to ensure a healthy ocean. But time is of the essence. The new Treaty will bring ocean governance into the 21st century, including establishing modern requirements to assess and manage planned human activities that would affect marine life in the high seas as well as ensuring greater transparency. This will greatly strengthen the effective area-based management of fishing, shipping and other activities that have contributed to the overall decline in ocean health. The issue of sufficient financing to fund the implementation of the treaty, as well as equity issues surrounding the sharing of benefits from marine genetic resources was one of the key sticking points between North and South throughout the meeting. However, right up to the final hours of the meeting, governments were able to land an agreement that provided for equitable sharing of these benefits from the deep sea and high seas. "It’s been a very long journey to get to a treaty. We will be looking to the 52 states that make up the High Ambition Coalition to lead the charge to adopt, ratify and identify important high seas areas to protect," said Hubbard. High Seas Alliance Member Quotes Gladys Martínez de Lemos, Executive Director, Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA): "Governments have taken an important step that strengthens the legal protection of two-thirds of the ocean and with it marine biodiversity, the livelihoods of coastal communities and global food sovereignty. The agreement sets out a path for establishing areas of high and full protection on the High Seas, as well as for the environmental assessment of projects and activities that may harm this vast area."   Laura Meller, oceans campaigner, Greenpeace Nordic: "This is a historic day for conservation and a sign that in a divided world, protecting nature and people can triumph over geopolitics. We praise countries for seeking compromises, putting aside differences and delivering a treaty that will let us protect the oceans, build our resilience to climate change and safeguard the lives and livelihoods of billions of people. We can now finally move from talk to real change at sea. Countries must formally adopt the treaty and ratify it as quickly as possible to bring it into force, and then deliver the fully protected ocean sanctuaries our planet needs. The clock is still ticking to deliver 30x30. We have half a decade left, and we can’t be complacent."   Matthew Collis, Deputy Vice President for Policy, IFAW: "The agreement of a new Treaty to conserve the high seas is a wonderful way to celebrate World Wildlife Day for ocean animals and their high seas homes. IFAW congratulates governments on this significant step, which charts a course to protect 30% of the ocean by 2030. To achieve 30x30, governments must now adopt, ratify and implement the new Treaty without delay."   Minna Epps, Director of Global Marine and Polar Programme, IUCN: "The High Seas Treaty opens the path for humankind to finally provide protection to marine life across our one ocean. Its adoption closes essential gaps in international law and offers a framework for governments to work together to protect global ocean heath, climate resilience, and the socioeconomic wellbeing and food security of billions of people."   Lance Morgan, President, Marine Conservation Institute: "Coming on the heels of the Global Biodiversity Framework, this historic agreement is a huge step towards ensuring marine protected areas in the High Seas and reaching 30x30."   Lisa Speer, Director of the International Ocean program, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC): "This text provides the basis for protecting key biodiversity hotspots in the high seas. We now have a pathway to achieve the goal of meaningfully protecting at least 30% of the ocean by 2030, a goal that scientists tell us is crucial to maintaining ocean health in the face of ocean warming, acidification and other impacts of climate change. Now let’s get started."   Fabienne McLellan, Managing Director, OceanCare: "This Treaty will be the game-changer the ocean urgently needs. We particularly welcome the conservation focused elements, such as environmental impact assessments. EIAs are one of the most effective and important mechanisms to prevent, mitigate and manage harmful activities in cases where there is severe harm to marine life through, for instance, underwater noise pollution. While we advocated for more ambition in the EIA provisions, these requirements will nevertheless strengthen ocean conservation."   Susanna Fuller, VP Conservation and Projects, Oceans North: "Following the Kunming Montreal Agreement, which sets out a global path for biodiversity protection, this treaty  will bring  a similar ambition to the high seas. Because Canada’s waters are bounded by three international ocean basins, it has an outsized role in ensuring that the treaty is fully implemented, once formally adopted."   Liz Karan, Director of Ocean Governance project, Pew: "The effective implementation of this landmark treaty is the only pathway to safeguard high seas biodiversity for generations to come and provides a pathway for nations to fulfill the 30 by 30 target. Governments and civil society must now ensure that the agreement is adopted and rapidly enters into force."   Christopher Chin, Executive Director, The Center for Oceanic Awareness, Research, and Education (COARE): "With this finalized text, the world is now one great step closer to embracing the importance of the High Seas, and to achieving the 30x30 objectives. Once adopted, however, member States must still ratify the treaty, and we call upon them to do so swiftly."   Andrew Deutz, Director of Global Policy, Institutions & Conservation Finance, The Nature Conservancy: "While the treaty leaves room for improvement, we should nevertheless celebrate the fact that –after more than a decade of discussions and three concerted attempts to wrestle it across the line – we finally have a global framework in place for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity for almost half of our planet’s surface. Whether this has arrived in time to slow the accelerating ecological crisis happening in our ocean will depend on how quickly countries can ratify the treaty at national level and start mainstreaming ambitions like 30x30 into both their own decision-making, and that of the global bodies which manage human activity on the high seas. If they can do so swiftly, putting people and planet above politics, we may yet have a chance to move beyond the damaging status quo and into a new era of nature-positive stewardship for this most critical of ecosystems."   Farah Obaidullah, Ocean Advocate and Founder, Women4Oceans: "This is an historic moment for humanity and for the protection of all living beings in our global ocean. A rare and welcome moment of hope for all of us rightfully concerned with the state of the world. Almost half our planet will now have a chance of some sort of protection from the ever-increasing onslaughts to the ocean. This treaty comes not a moment too soon. With the climate and global wildlife crises worsening and a reckless new industry of deep-sea mining on the horizon, we cannot afford any delays in putting this treaty into force." Press contacts: Patricia Roy (EU), +34 696 905 907 Michael Crocker (US), +1 (207) 522-1366  Mirella von Lindenfels, + 44 7717 844 352 Julio Whalen-Valeriano (UN), +1 (850) 292-4689  

Read more
Oceans

Decision time for world’s governments on new global treaty for the ocean

New York: Today governments resume negotiations at the United Nations in New York to finalize a new High Seas Treaty to ensure the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction. The two-week Intergovernmental conference is taking place from 20 February to 3 March 2023 and is a resumption of negotiations from August 2022, when governments ran out of time. Covering half of the planet, the High Seas support vibrant marine ecosystems, life that is vital to the global food supply, and the planet’s climate system. However, it has been plagued by poor or patchy governance, and with only 1.2% protected, vast High Seas areas are open to unsustainable exploitation. This new treaty aims to address these shortcomings and offers a historic opportunity to put in place game-changing new measures for the ocean, including establishing highly and fully protected areas and strengthening assessment and management of human activities. The recent global commitment to protect at least 30% of the ocean by 2030 (the “30x30” goal) offers an ambitious backdrop for ensuring this new treaty provides the legal tools to turn the target into a reality. The pressure is now on governments to ensure the treaty that is finally agreed upon will be ambitious enough to result in a healthy ocean rather than a degraded one. Key issues that still need to be addressed at the meeting include: measures to ensure that the new treaty can deliver effective new marine protected areas rather than “paper parks”; safeguards to avoid harm arising from human activities affecting the high seas and the deep seabed; a strong institutional framework to ensure effective implementation and compliance; decision-making rules to avoid enabling one or two countries to block progress; and critical finance and equity issues related to capacity building and the sharing of benefits from marine genetic resources. "We came frustratingly close to getting this treaty over the line in August at what was supposed to be the final round of negotiations. With the accelerating climate and biodiversity crises, time is not a luxury we have to put ocean health back on track," said Sarah Bevis from the High Seas Alliance. "This time round we need to seize the moment and get an ambitious treaty over the finish line, so we can roll up our sleeves and work on the crucial tasks of getting the treaty ratified and implemented."   Additional Quotes from High Seas Alliance member organizations: Dr Laura Meller, Oceans Campaigner and Polar Advisor, Greenpeace Nordic said: "The oceans support all life on Earth. Their fate will be decided at these negotiations. The science is clear. Protecting 30% of the oceans by 2030 is the absolute minimum necessary to avert catastrophe. It was encouraging to see all governments adopt the 30x30 target last year, but lofty targets mean nothing without action." "This special session taking place so soon after the last round of negotiations collapsed gives us hope. If a strong Treaty is agreed on the 3rd of March, it keeps 30x30 alive. Governments must return to negotiations ready to find compromises and deliver an effective Treaty. We’re already in extra time. These talks are one final chance to deliver. Governments must not fail."   Trevor Jones, Campaign Manager, Only One said: "Without protections for the high seas, we cannot hope to have a healthy ocean, and without a healthy ocean we put marine life, coastal livelihoods, and global food stability at grave risk. Millions of people from around the world have spoken out: They want a strong High Seas Treaty, and they’re counting on their leaders to finally get the job done."   Liz Karan, Director of Pew’s Ocean Governance Project said: "The high seas support diverse marine life and unique ecosystems critical to the health of our ocean and planet. Countries must seize this opportunity to finalize a robust high seas treaty to establish highly protected, cross sectoral high seas MPAs for the benefit of current and future generations."   Jennifer Morris, CEO of The Nature Conservancy said: "Ensuring legal protection for the vast areas of open ocean beyond national jurisdiction, and actively acknowledging the importance of addressing this situation, is a pivotal step in moving toward our ambitious ‘30x30’ target in the new UN Global Biodiversity Framework. Ensuring a successful outcome from the New York negotiations, in the form of a formally agreed and legally binding High Seas Treaty, is imperative to meet the collective commitment to conserve 30% of the Earth’s ocean this side of 2030."   Gladys Martínez, Executive Director of the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) said: "The high seas urgently needs a governance framework. We look forward to states concluding a strong and ambitious treaty during these two weeks."   Fabienne McLellan, Managing Director OceanCare said: "We have high hopes that governments will find a way to finalize the High Seas Treaty during the resumed session of IGC 5. Countries must understand that it would be grossly negligent to once again fail to conclude an agreement to conserve marine diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. The climate and biodiversity crises are in full swing, and the ocean is our ally, not an infinite resource to be exploited. It is not only important that the Agreement is finalized, but what is agreed needs to make a tangible difference in protecting biodiversity. Against this backdrop, it is difficult to imagine that no agreement will be reached - the agreement is vital for marine biodiversity, a healthy ocean and thus also for us humans". PRESS CONTACTS Patricia Roy, + 34 696 905 907 - CET Mirella von Lindenfels, +44 7717 844 352 - EST  

Read more
Mining, Toxic Pollution, Human Rights

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
Indigenous Rights, Mining, Freshwater Sources

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
Fracking, Freshwater Sources, Toxic Pollution

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
Fracking, Human Rights, Indigenous Rights

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
Indigenous Rights, Accountability and Transparency, Human Rights

Indigenous victory as development bank withdraws investment and drafts exit plan following rights violation in Guatemala

In a historic advance, the Inter-American Development Bank has designed a responsible exit plan to accompany their divestment from two controversial large dams in the Yichk'isis micro-region of Guatemala. Affected Mayan communities celebrate the decision, a response to their 2018 complaint, while acknowledging that the Bank has several challenges left to confront.   Washington, DC, U.S.A. The Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) announced its decision to withdraw financing from the San Mateo and San Andrés hydroelectric projects, run by the company Energía y Renovación S.A. in the micro-region of Yichk'isis (Ixquisis) in northern Guatemala. The Bank designed a responsible exit and institutional strengthening plan to address the weaknesses the case revealed. The Bank’s decision stems from a complaint affected Mayan communities filed in 2018 before the IDB Group's Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism (MICI, for it’s Spanish initials). In resolving the complaint, the accountability office concluded that IDB Invest failed to comply with the bank’s operational policies and safeguards in the framework of project financing, and opened the possibility of a withdrawal of investment. "It’s an opportunity for the bank to take into account the lessons learned from the case: among them the relevance of understanding the local contexts of projects, the socio-cultural dynamics of the populations that will be directly affected, and the local perspective of development to determine the viability of the financing," says Liliana Avila, senior attorney of the Human Rights and Environment Program of the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). "It is also an opportunity for the bank to strengthen the monitoring and supervision of the projects it supports in order to prevent non-compliance.” The divestment was finalized in October 2021, when IDB Invest and Energía y Renovación S.A. signed settlement agreements. Notably, this is the first time that the IDB Group, as a result of a complaint, has drawn up a plan to make its exit responsible. However, there are still challenges and pending issues that the financial institution must address in the process of exiting hydroelectric projects. "In order to prepare the responsible exit plan, IDB Invest must carry out consultation processes with the affected communities, which will largely define the plan's capacity to effectively address and offer viable solutions to the damages recognized in the MICI report, such as the increase in conflict, the lack of knowledge of the existence of indigenous peoples and their rights, the effects on ancestral cultural heritage, the differentiated impacts on women and the lack of prevention and consequent environmental degradation," said Carolina Juaneda, of the Bank Information Center. "If these issues are not addressed and included in the responsible exit plan, all this effort will not have been worthwhile since, ultimately, it will not lead to any improvement or reconstitution of living conditions for the affected people and the environment." The action plan proposed by the entity establishes that IDB Invest will create a transition plan translated into the native languages of the affected communities, as well as a gender-differentiated impact assessment, and an investment to promote financial inclusion and women's empowerment in the area. In addition, the plan contains actions to address MICI's recommendations for structural changes at the institutional level. In this regard, the bank plans to strengthen the environmental and social safeguards unit of IDB Invest in the area of indigenous peoples, as well as to establish a zero tolerance policy for gender-based violence, which will be included in the contractual conditions of operations approved by the bank. Existing protocols will include tools to follow up on acts of violence associated with projects financed by IDB Invest. Regarding the categorization of projects, an update will be made so that the internal supervision classification will be modified to a higher one when circumstances are identified that raise the risks and impacts of a project after its financing was approved. "The bank's responsibility in the investment process and in the non-compliance with its social and environmental safeguards is evident; therefore, it must promote during the exit process the effectiveness of the actions in a participatory manner, free of manipulation and in an inclusive manner with the community to reduce the risks of re-victimization and violation of the affected population," indicates Mara Bocaletti, Director of the International Platform against Impunity. "This experience is a first step to maximize the benefits in the territories so as to make amends for the damage caused." The communities submitted their complaint to MICI in August 2018 with the accompaniment of AIDA, the International Platform against Impunity and the Plurinational Ancestral Government of the Akateko, Chuj, Q'anjob'al and Popti' Native Nations. In it, they requested that IDB Invest withdraw its investment due to the damage that the implementation of the projects has caused to the environment, indigenous peoples and women of Ixquisis. In September 2021, the IDB Group Board of Directors approved the MICI report, which concluded that IDB Invest failed to comply with its own operational policies and safeguards for at least five reasons: 1) validating an inadequate characterization of the affected population, which denied the existence of indigenous peoples; 2) failing to verify the completion of an identification of gender-differentiated impacts on women; 3) failing to ensure that the client made an adequate identification and management of environmental impacts; 4) failing to ensure that the communities were properly informed and consulted; and 5) failing to carry out adequate monitoring of local conflict risks that could be generated in the area because of the projects. "The MICI report confirms that IDB Invest failed to comply with its policies, generating adverse impacts on the lives of the communities. The company Energía y Renovación did not act with due diligence in the framework of its operations and, on the contrary, has implemented strategies contrary to the respect of human rights. Currently, several indigenous authorities and human rights defenders are criminalized, making undeniable the continued risk for the communities," says Rigoberto Juárez, General Coordinator of the Plurinational Ancestral Government. "Given this evidence, it’s important that IDB Invest guarantee actions aimed at repairing the damages caused to the communities in the framework of the financing of these projects, and more strongly recognize its responsibility." press contacts: Victor Quintanilla (México), AIDA, [email protected], +521 5570522107 Camila Castellanos, Plataforma Internacional contra la Impunidad, [email protected]  

Read more