Press Release

Large Dams, Indigenous Rights, Freshwater Sources

Historic recommendation paves the way for development bank to exit harmful hydroelectric projects in indigenous territory

For the first time, a case brought before the Inter-American Development Bank’s (IDB) Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism (MICI) opens the possibility for the bank to responsibly exit financing granted to hydroelectric projects, after concluding that the investment was made without acknowledging the presence of indigenous peoples, thus violating the bank’s operational policies.   Washington DC, United States. The Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism (MICI) of the Inter-American Development Bank Group concluded that, within the framework of the financing granted to the Generadora San Mateo and Generadora San Andrés hydroelectric projects—located in the Yich K'isis micro-region, territory of the Native Maya Chuj Guatemala Nation—IDB Invest ignored the presence of indigenous peoples in the area by failing to verify their existence, thus ruling out the implementation of safeguards to protect them. MICI also established that the Bank failed to comply with several of its internal policies and, based on this, opened the possibility for a responsible withdrawal of the investment. These and other findings are contained in the case’s Final Report, approved by the IDB Board of Executive Directors, in which MICI resolved the complaint filed in 2018 by the affected communities—represented by the Ancestral Plurinational Government of the Maya Q'anjob'al, Maya Chuj, Maya Akateko, Maya Popti and Mestiza Native Nations; the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA); and the International Platform Against Impunity. Of the 29 recommendations issued in the report: 10 are aimed at institutional changes to avoid non-compliance with environmental and social safeguards in other IDB Invest operations; 18 are focused on implementing specific corrective actions to redirect the San Mateo and San Andrés projects; and one of them, number 29, opens the possibility for IDB Invest to withdraw its investment from the hydroelectric plants. "In case of exit from the Projects, IDB Invest should adopt the necessary provisions to ensure a responsible exit from Operations," the report reads. "Recommendation 29 is the most consistent with the findings of the Final Report and the one that best responds to the request that the communities have made since the beginning of the process: it is unsustainable for IDB Invest to finance projects that were developed in indigenous territories while ignoring their presence," said Liliana Ávila, senior attorney at AIDA. "In an effective accountability process, the bank must be held responsible for its mistakes and remedy the damage it has caused." This represents a milestone for the region, as it is the first time that MICI has made such a consistent recommendation regarding projects under investigation. The recommendation demonstrates improvements in the bank's accountability processes, increases opportunities for communities affected by IDB Group-financed projects, and sets a precedent for better financing practices. "The report sets a precedent for accountability in the region. It puts MICI and the compliance verification phase one step closer to responding to the requests and demands of affected communities," said Carolina Juaneda, Latin America Coordinator for the Bank Information Center. "Recommendation 29 is a novel and encouraging development, as it puts the requests and demands of the communities that have been negatively affected by the projects at center stage. Although there are still many challenges to continue working on, the report undoubtedly represents a clear and powerful step toward strengthening accountability in the region." For the communities, it is through full compliance with Recommendation 29 that their primary request may finally be answered. The bank’s divestment from the dams must incorporate a responsible, participatory and comprehensive withdrawal plan that respects the good faith consultation carried out in 2009, in which the communities decided not to carry out the such projects in their territory. The plan must include: 1) recognition and restoration of social and cultural damages caused; 2) respect for the rights of indigenous peoples and recognition and restoration of the damages generated; 3) recognition and restoration of the damages generated by the differentiated impacts on women; and 4) prevention, mitigation and restoration measures from an environmental perspective. "The measures proposed in Recommendation 29 should have been part of the project planning phase. By not having considered them in its initial phase, a series of impacts and damages to the community were generated," stated Mara Bocaletti, Regional Director of the International Platform Against Impunity. "Only a responsible exit process by the investors will be able to restore the conditions of credibility towards the accountability mechanisms of international financial institutions." Another of the communities' expectations is that the IDB Group will guarantee their access to information and participation in the following phases of the process, which would allow the effective guarantee of their rights and the improvement of the bank's protection strategies. "This report is very valuable because it recognizes the impacts generated by the projects and validates the complaints we have been making for years. It is an important report not only for us, but for all indigenous peoples in Guatemala," said Lucas Marcos, local authority. "The bank's responsible withdrawal from the projects will allow us to maintain our rivers and access to water for us and our families." In addition to non-compliance with the IDB's policy on indigenous peoples, MICI concluded that the development of the San Mateo and San Andres projects caused differentiated impacts on women, environmental impacts, increased conflict, and harm to the social fabric. It also found that the bank did not guarantee access to information for the communities. "It is a serious wrongdoing that the bank has prioritized the advancement of these projects despite failing to comply with its internal requirements, to the detriment of our life as communities and ignoring our presence as indigenous peoples," said Rigoberto Juarez, Coordinator of the Plurinational Government of the Maya Q'anjob'al, Maya Chuj, Maya Akateko, Maya Popti and Mestiza indigenous nations. "Our individual and collective rights cannot be undermined in the face of private interests; consequently, a responsible withdrawal is the least the bank can do in the face of the magnitude of the damages caused. We hope that this will not happen again in other cases, and that the bank will assume its responsibility to respect the rights of indigenous peoples." The outcome of this complaint, as well as the international attention surrounding the case, is the result of a process of organization and resistance undertaken by the Mayan men and women of Yich K'isis upon being faced with of the imposition of large-scale hydroelectric projects, developed without due diligence and without consultation. For years, they have been demanding respect for their ways of life, and the value they hold for their water and their culture. The MICI report, apart from supporting the allegations of the affected communities regarding the violations of their rights, also sets an important precedent for Guatemala. This decision should be taken into account on a national level to address the countless irregularities and rights violations denounced throughout the country in the context of the implementation of mega-development projects, specifically large dams. press contacts Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, [email protected], +525570522107 Camila Castellanos, International Platform Against Impunity, [email protected]  

Read more
Mining, Freshwater Sources

International Arbitration Tribunal rules in favour of a Canadian company and puts foreign investment above Colombia's legitimate right to protect Santurbán

Bucaramanga, Bogotá, Washington, Ottawa. National and international civil society organizations are widely rejecting the decision made by the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) on September 10 in the case of Eco Oro v. Colombia, for at least three reasons: we consider that (i) it is inconsistent and reflects a profound ignorance of the socio-environmental complexity of the case; (ii) it is the result of an unfair and widely discretionary investment arbitration system that allows for arbitrary decisions made by those who oversee these cases and, (iii) increases the risk of further arbitrations being brought against the State of Colombia at the ICSID. ICSID is one of the institutions responsible for resolving disputes between States and international investors — in this case, within the context of the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. In the case of Eco Oro v. Colombia, the ICSID Tribunal concluded that, although the protection measures of the páramos adopted by Colombia were legitimate and did not constitute an expropriation of the rights of the Canadian company Eco Oro, its actions in the delimitation of the Páramo de Santurbán did violate the “minimum standard of treatment” to foreigners. The Tribunal has yet to decide on compensation for damages to Eco Oro and has asked both parties for more information to inform its decision. The Tribunal’s decision was the result of a process initiated by a supranational arbitration claim filed by the Canadian company Eco Oro against Colombia in 2016, which questioned the decisions made by the Colombian government to protect the páramos — the natural source of water for 70% of inhabitants. The Canadian investor [Eco Oro] intends to construct the Angostura gold mine in the Santurbán páramo, located in the northeast of the country. An inconsistent decision that ignores the socio-environmental complexities of the case. The majority of the Tribunal held that the decisions made by the Colombian government were in accordance with Colombian national law and were made with the legitimate aim of protecting the environment. In addition, the Tribunal recognized that the páramos are being threatened by both human intervention and climate change and that the possibility of their recovery from mining activities is very low, which is why it is necessary to protect them. As a result, the Tribunal rejected Eco Oro’s argument that the precautionary principle was not applicable, and pointed out that the Santurbán case was an example where it was, in fact, relevant. This was the grounds for rejecting one of Eco Oro’s claims that its rights had been indirectly expropriated by the State of Colombia. On the contrary, the Tribunal found that the measures adopted by the country were a legitimate exercise in environmental protection. However, when examining a second claim, the Tribunal explained that the inconsistency, hesitation and inaction of the State of Colombia in the delimitation of the Santurbán páramo had thwarted Eco Oro's investment expectations without any “apparent legitimate justification,” and had therefore not granted the investor "fair and equitable treatment" in accordance with the "minimum standard of treatment" for foreigners. This last ruling of the Tribunal is inconsistent. It ignores the socio-environmental complexity of the case and the challenges of materializing the right to environmental participation within the process of delimitation of the páramo. Although the decision recognizes that the delimitation involves managing widely disparate interests throughout the process, in the end — in a ruling far removed from the reality of Santurbán and its communities — the Tribunal took this process lightly, dismissing its complexities, and appears to have not taken it as legitimate and sufficient justification. An unpredictable, limiting and unfair arbitration system. "The Tribunal's decisions are not predictable, since decisions in one case do not bind future rulings on environmental issues.  There is no precedent set, as traditionally understood in the system. The breadth of the clauses and the arbitrators' freedom of interpretation are excessive, which is problematic not only for Colombia but for all countries in the region," said Yeny Rodriguez, a lawyer with the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). This decision allows mining investment to prevail over the Colombian State's obligation to protect the environment and the water of Colombians. We question the fact that the Tribunal has made its decision but has not judged the lack of due diligence by the Canadian company who knew from the beginning that its mining project overlapped with a páramo zone — a sensitive ecosystem protected by national law. This case demonstrates the arbitrary and overreaching nature of the supranational arbitration system, and the way in which it disciplines and punishes the governments of the Global South. It’s worth remembering that in February 2019, the Tribunal rejected the possible participation of the Santurbán Committee in the process. Uncertainty for Colombia. Carla García Zendejas, Director of the People, Land and Resources Program of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) stated, "The legal uncertainty that the supranational investment arbitration system represents for Colombia is enormous. The high levels of arbitrariness that characterizes the system leads to penalizing States for any circumstance in which expected profits are affected. And this is especially critical for Colombia, as there are other lawsuits against the country resulting from extractive projects linked to Santurbán and other fragile ecosystems. This could mean a domino effect of lawsuits and heavy penalties against Colombians." Two other lawsuits are currently underway before ICSID against the country by Canadian mining companies — Red Eagle Exploration and Galway Gold — for measures taken to protect the Santurbán páramo. There are also other lawsuits filed by Cosigo Resources, South32 Investments Limited, Gran Colombia Gold, Glencore International and Anglo American in connection to other extractive projects. We call on the Colombian State to denounce the free trade agreements and bilateral investment protection agreements to which it is party and to refrain from signing such instruments in the future. It is for these reasons above that today the Comité para la Defensa del Agua y el Páramo de Santurbán (Committee for the Defense of Water and the Páramo of Santurbán) is holding a day of protest in front of the Canadian Embassy in Bogotá, demanding that ICSID respect their legitimate fight for the defense of water, Santurbán and the páramos of Colombia. Likewise, we are also in front of Congress, demanding that the Investment Protection Agreements with the United Arab Emirates-Minesa be rejected. press contacts Comité para la Defensa del Agua y el Páramo de Santurbán, [email protected], +57 3012080622 Carla García Zendejas, Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), [email protected], +1 202 374 2550 Yeny Rodríguez Junco, Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), [email protected], +57 3107787601 Jamie Kneen, MiningWatch Canada, [email protected], +1(613) 761-2273 Manuel Pérez Rocha, Institute for Policy Studies, [email protected], +1 240 838 6623  

Read more
Indigenous Rights, Mining, Freshwater Sources

International technical assistance is consolidated to recover Uru Uru and Poopó lakes

At the request of organizations and communities, experts from the Ramsar Convention Secretariat will evaluate the degradation of the lakes and then issue technical recommendations for their recovery.   Oruro, Bolivia. From October 11 to 15, a team of experts from the Ramsar Convention Secretariat will visit the Uru Uru and Poopó lakes, located in the central-eastern part of the Bolivian altiplano, to conduct a technical analysis of their degradation and then provide concrete recommendations to the Bolivian State for the recovery of the ecosystems. In July 2019—as part of the #LagoPoopóEsVida campaign—local communities and environmental, social and women's organizations sent the Ramsar Secretariat information on the state of the lakes and requested technical assistance to assess their health. The Bolivian government then made the formal request to make the visit feasible. "We recognize the political will of national authorities to obtain international support for the environmental crisis facing the lakes, on whose preservation the livelihoods of peasant and indigenous populations depend," said Claudia Velarde, an attorney with the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). "Ramsar Advisory Missions are an effective tool offering independent and specialized advice geared toward the preservation of wetlands." Poopó is the second largest lake in Bolivia. In 2002, in order to preserve its biodiversity—which includes endemic and migratory birds and the largest number of flamingos in South America—Poopó and Uru Uru were declared a Wetland of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention, an intergovernmental treaty for the protection of these natural environments. "The Uru Uru and Poopó lakes guarantee the recharging of wells and other water sources, regulate the climate, provide habitat for birdlife, food security and sovereignty for surrounding populations, and shelter millenary cultures," said Limbert Sánchez, of the Center for Ecology and Andean Peoples (CEPA). Several factors have led to the catastrophic situation currently facing Lake Poopó, including: mining activities, which have not stopped during the pandemic and permanently generate acidic water and tons of mining waste; the diversion of tributaries like the Mauri River; the fact that the TDSP (Titicaca-Desaguadero-Poopó-Salar Water System) is not guaranteeing water for the entire basin; and the climate crisis. Cumulatively, these situations have damaged the lake and placed the life systems that depend on it at risk. "In December 2015, the water levels of Lake Poopó were completely reduced, one of the biggest environmental catastrophes in the country. Currently, what is left of the water mirror is minimal compared to historical records," corroborated Yasin Peredo, of the Center for Andean Communication and Development (CENDA). In addition to causing serious environmental damage, what’s happening to Lakes Poopó and Uru Uru is a serious violation of surrounding communities’ rights to water, health, territory, food and livelihood. "It’s with great sadness that we witness the disappearing of Lake Poopó, and the risk to our Lake Uru Uru," said Margarita Aquino, coordinator of the National Network of Women Defenders of Mother Earth (RENAMAT). "Mining contamination is stripping us of our water sources and is violating the rights of us women and our communities." Indigenous Aymara and Quechua communities depend on the health of these ecosystems, as do the Uru Murato, one of Bolivia's oldest native nations. The members of this millenary culture once lived from fishing, but the contamination of Poopó and its scarce water supply has forced them to migrate in search of other ways to survive. Don Pablo Flores, a native authority of the Uru de Puñaca community explains: "In August, authorities arrived and with them we went to the lake and found that there is no more water; the Panza Island sector is also dry. As Urus, how are we living? Before we used to go for parihuanas [Andean flamingos], but not now. In February they used to lay eggs and change their feathers. This year there are none. The flamingos are dead. The lake does not exist now. The three Uru communities are suffering; we used to live from hunting and fishing. We ask the municipal, departmental and national authorities for more attention because, so far, practically nothing has been done to save, protect and recover our lake Poopó." By including the Uru Uru and Poopó lakes as a Ramsar site, the Bolivian State committed itself to conserving the ecological characteristics of these wetlands. In this sense, the visit from the mission of experts is a key opportunity to obtain objective and specialized recommendations aimed at fulfilling this commitment. "Environmental organizations, communities and the people of Bolivia are awaiting the visit of the Ramsar Mission. We believe that the current situation of the ecosystem must be taken into account, but also the factors that continue to influence its degradation. As long as strategies to combat climate change are not adopted, mining pollution is not stopped, and the amount of water needed for the entire TDPS is not guaranteed, the critical situation of our Uru Uru and Poopó lakes cannot be reversed," said Ángela Cuenca, coordinator of the CASA Collective. PRESS CONTACTS: Victor Quintanilla (MExico), AIDA, [email protected], +5215570522107 Angela Cuenca (Bolivia), Colectivo CASA, [email protected], +59172485221 Limbert Sanchez (Bolivia), CEPA, [email protected], +59172476802 Sergio Vasquez Rojas (Bolivia), CENDA, [email protected], +59172734594  

Read more
Accountability and Transparency, Indigenous Rights, Mining

Investor Alert: Belo Sun discloses misleading information to investors regarding controversial gold mining project in the Brazilian Amazon

In a complaint to the Ontario Securities Commission, an international coalition of civil society organizations calls attention to the repeated dissemination of misleading information by Belo Sun Mining Corp (TSXV:BSX), including statements by CEO Peter Tagliamonte, downplaying socio-environmental, legal, and financial risks of the company’s “Volta Grande” project along the Xingu River.   Canadian-based mining company Belo Sun Corp.(TSXV:BSX) is disseminating misleading and incomplete information to investors about the mining project it is trying to develop on the Xingu river (Volta Grande do Xingu), Pará State, Brazil. This is the central message of a warning letter sent to the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) on July 29rd by an international coalition of civil society organizations and networks including Amazon Watch, Earthworks, Instituto Socioambiental (ISA), Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), International Rivers, MiningWatch Canada, Movimento Xingu Vivo para Sempre and Rede Xingu+. The OSC is an independent Canadian Crown corporation responsible for protecting shareholders and investors from unfair, improper and fraudulent practices from companies and industries. Drafted by a legal team and supported by independent technical and scientific analysis, the complaint letter challenges recent statements by Belo Sun’s CEO Peter Tagliamonte. In a speech at the Prospectors & Developers Association of Canada (PDAC) event in March 2021, the largest mining convention in the world, Tagliamonte cited the Covid-19 pandemic as the justification for repeated delays in the environmental licencing of the Volta Grande mine, claiming that the mining project was "fully authorized" and that construction was expected to begin at the end of 2021. Similar comments have been made in recent company statements, and by Tagliamonte himself in other occasions. According to the complaint, such declarations are patently false. There are seven public civil actions active in Brazilian courts asking for the suspension of permits and of the licencing process, filed by Federal and State public prosecutors’ and defenders’ offices. These lawsuits focus specifically on irregularities in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), and the lack of free, prior and informed consultation and consent with Indigenous peoples and other traditional communities. The coalition argues that there is overwhelming evidence that Belo Sun breached the Securities Act disclosure requirements, which requires companies to disclose material changes “forthwith” (without delay). Companies must disclose factual and updated data to keep investors well informed. Misleading information disclosed by Belo Sun Mining Corp. According to the complaint, while the company acknowledges the generic risks associated with the licensing process, it fails to disclose the concrete details of the legal actions and suspensions in play regarding its project, relying on investors' lack of knowledge concerning licensing legislation in Brazil. One example refers specifically to the suspension of its construction licence (LI), due to the lack of "free and informed consultation" of Indigenous peoples. In its more recent Corporate Update, Belo Sun states that "it continues to advance financial discussions with various groups in preparation for the commencement of construction following the lifting of the suspension of the construction license (LI)". "The company has not even started a consultation process, - which is now delayed by COVID-19 - and it is already advertising the lifting of the suspension, as if it was just a matter of time", says Marcella Ribeiro, attorney from AIDA's Human Rights and the Environment Program. "The company is not in a position to guarantee the results of the consultation process, as negotiations around consent are time-consuming and will invariably result in major material changes to the project. None of that is being disclosed properly to investors", she adds. Among the risks associated with investments in Belo Sun, the complaint highlights the history of judicial proceedings; conflict around the project; the flaws and gaps in the environmental impact assessment; and the violation of the Indigenous Peoples’ right to prior consultation. The downplaying of environmental and social risks by the company’s studies and impact assessments has sounded the alarm among communities in the Volta Grande region, already affected by the Belo Monte dam. A series of independent technical studies challenge Belo Sun’s statements regarding impacts to water resources, to fauna and flora, and regarding dam safety. The company’s refusal to acknowledge impacts in Indigenous territories along the Xingu river has led to the court decision that suspended the installation licence of the Volta Grande project in 2017 until "free and informed consultation" was carried out. There are also increasing accounts of intimidation and harassment against project opponents, which demonstrate a much more complex and contentious situation as a result of the project than what has been disclosed by the company, the complaint stresses. The coalition concludes that "Belo Sun has failed to fully communicate to current and potential investors about the complex nature of its project" which has a "direct implication for delays, and raises fundamental questions about the project’s viability".  The letter delivered to the OSC aims to increase visibility to the many irregularities of the project and to raise awareness among current and potential investors about the major reputational and legal risks attached to the project, at a moment when heightened attention is focused on the Amazon rainforest and its capacity to provide environmental services and mitigate climate change. About Belo Sun’s Volta Grande Project Proposed for development along the Volta Grande (Big Bend), a stretch of the Xingu River (a major tributary of the Amazon) that is one of the most biodiverse locations on the planet, Belo Sun’s project would be the largest open pit gold mine in Brazil. The region is home to indigenous people such as Juruna (Yudjá), Arara, and Xikrin, along other isolated Indigenous and riverside communities. From the outset, Belo Sun has faced numerous lawsuits regarding the Volta Grande Project filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office, the State Public Prosecutor's Office, the State Public Defender's Office, and the Union Public Defender's Office. All of these lawsuits refer to the multiple flaws in its licensing process and in the project’s technical studies. Among other things, the lawsuits seek the cancellation of the company's licences and the suspension of the project's licensing process. One of them resulted in a court decision, still valid, to suspend Belo Sun’s construction licence. press contacts Viviana Herrera, MiningWatch Canada, ​[email protected] Camila Rossi, Amazon Watch, [email protected] Cecilia Garcia, International Rivers, [email protected] Victor Quintanilla, AIDA, [email protected]  

Read more
Indigenous Rights, Oceans

Chile: Report Finds That Approval of Salmon Farms in Kawésqar National Reserve is Illegal

The document prepared by national and international organizations highlights the incompatibility between this type of industry and the purpose of protection of the area. Even without an established management plan, there are already 57 salmon farming concessions, 113 in process and 6 resolutions of environmental qualification have been approved after the creation of the Reserve.   Local communities in the area of the Kawésqar National Reserve—including Kawésqar Atap, As Wal Lajep, Grupos Familiares Nómades del Mar, Residentes Río Primero and Inés Caro—provided Chile’s National Forestry Corporation (CONAF) with a technical report that seeks to provide information on the serious impact that the salmon industry generates on marine ecosystems. Prepared by the NGOs FIMA, Greenpeace and AIDA (the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense), the report will be considered in the management plan that the government entity must develop and implement to comply with the protection of the marine waters that make up the Reserve. "CONAF must guarantee compliance with what was established in the Indigenous Consultation and explicitly prohibit salmon farming in the reserve's management plan. This definition is key to the future health of the Patagonian marine ecosystems," explained Estefanía González, Greenpeace's Campaign Coordinator. "Salmon farming is completely incompatible with the maintenance of healthy marine ecosystems." Historic process for the protection of the Southern seas The creation of the Kawésqar National Reserve in 2018 was a key milestone for the participation of these native people in decision-making regarding the ecosystems that make up their ancestral territory. On that occasion, through indigenous consultation, the need to protect the waters and prevent the development of activities such as salmon farming was expressly established, considering the particular situation of fragility of the area and the Kawésqar cultural legacy, firmly linked to the sea. In their above referenced report, the organizations conclude that salmon farming as an activity is incompatible with the protection objectives of National Reserves, from a legal and ecosystemic point of view, and in particular with the Kawésqar National Reserve, due to the many risks involved. Among the damages caused by this industry are biological contamination caused by the introduction of exotic species, the indiscriminate use of antibiotics, periodic massive salmon escapes, and the food and feces deposited on the seafloor, which generate anaerobic conditions and red tides. All of the above endangers a marine area with unique diversity and which the State itself has decided to protect. "Allowing salmon farming in the Kawésqar National Reserve would render the protection given to the area useless," added Victoria Belemmi, FIMA attorney. "This point has even been recognized by the national directorate of CONAF, which when consulted in 2019 by the comptroller's office on salmon farming within protected areas, pointed out that according to the current national and international legal framework, including the Washington Convention, an activity such as salmon farming would not be admissible in an area designed to protect the marine ecosystem." Statement from the Comptroller's Office For its part, AIDA filed a letter with the Comptroller General's Office to solicit a ruling on the approval of a project to increase the biomass of a salmon farming center located in the Alacalufes Reserve, now Kawésqar National Reserve, which was operating under anaerobic conditions. "The approval of this project meant that salmon production was authorized to increase in an area where there was already evidence that the carrying capacity of the site was exceeded," explained Florencia Ortúzar, AIDA attorney. "The fact that the center was located in the waters bordering the Alacalufes Reserve (now Kawésqar) makes it even more serious." The low level of oxygen affecting the waters was evidenced by official documentation recognizing the regulations for that purpose—the Preliminary Site Characterization that the center's owner submitted to request the expansion, and several preliminary reports (INFA) confirming the situation. With the approval, the center acquired authorization to almost triple its original production. Subpesca had noted the situation, even interposing an observation on the matter within the process. However, shortly thereafter, it issued its approval of the project. Subsequently, the Environmental Evaluation Service (SEA) approved the project by means of an Environmental Qualification Resolution (RCA, for its Spanish initials). Read the report here (in Spanish) press contact Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, [email protected], +5215570522107  

Read more
Fracking, Indigenous Rights, Freshwater Sources

Fracking regulation in Mendoza violates Argentina's climate commitments

AIDA filed a legal brief before the Supreme Court of Mendoza arguing the unconstitutionality of a decree allowing for unconventional oil and gas drilling through hydraulic fracturing in the Argentine province.   Mendoza, Argentina. In support of a lawsuit filed by Argentine ally OIKOS, the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) filed a “friend of the court” brief claiming the unconstitutionality of local regulations allowing for the exploration and exploitation of unconventional hydrocarbons, known as fracking. Using arguments based on international law, the brief outlines how Mendoza’s Decree 248 violates Argentina’s climate commitments and disregards the precautionary principle. "As a party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and a signatory of the Paris Agreement, the Argentine State has assumed international obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the climate crisis," explained AIDA attorney Claudia Velarde. "Betting on fracking implies an increase in those emissions and non-compliance with the nation’s climate commitments.” Several studies of fracking in the United States have posited that leakage and flaring during fracking operations are associated with a significant increase of methane in the atmosphere. Though less notorious than carbon dioxide, methane emissions are responsible for around 25 percent of global warming. Decree 248 fails to contemplate any provision to control greenhouse gas emissions generated by fracking or limit their climate impacts. “There are not sufficient grounds for the government of Mendoza to claim they can effectively regulate fracking,” Velarde said. "It’s clear that this regulation is insufficient, and that it ignores the precautionary principle.” The precautionary principle establishes that, when there is danger of serious or irreversible damage, the lack of absolute scientific certainty should not prevent the adoption of effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. In fracking, being an unconventional technique with a high degree of technical and scientific difficulty, there is no certainty about its impacts, which merits the application of the precautionary principle. The brief also documents the applicability of this argument based on similar cases in other countries of Latin America. Colombia currently has a moratorium on fracking based on this legal principle. "In recent decades, the development of fracking has raised alarms worldwide due to evidence of serious and irreversible damages to the environment and public health, both of which are aggravated by the climate crisis," Velarde added. AIDA’s brief joins others filed by national and international organizations against the decree regulating fracking in Mendoza, including Xumek, FARN (Environment and Natural Resource Foundation) and Earthjustice. Press contact: Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), [email protected], +5215570522107.  

Read more
Indigenous Rights, Mining, Toxic Pollution

OECD to investigate human rights abuses filed against the owners of Cerrejón coal mine; BHP, Anglo American and Glencore

Parallel complaints also filed in Ireland against state owned-company for purchasing coal and Dublin-based sales wing of mining enterprise.   Multiple National Contact Points (NCPs) of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) will begin the process of investigating three international mining giants (BHP, Anglo American and Glencore) and Ireland’s state-owned energy provider, the ESB, over serious human rights abuses and devastating environmental pollution at the Cerrejón coal mine in Colombia. Parallel complaints were filed simultaneously in Australia, Ireland, Switzerland and the UK by the Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) with the support of international development agency Christian Aid Ireland as well as Colombian and international human rights and environmental NGOs - CINEP, CAJAR, AIDA, ABColombia and ASK. If successful, the three companies which jointly own the Cerrejón mine will have to take steps to comply with the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, including progressively closing down the mine in full and environmental restoration. The complaints against the mining giants also call for the full compensation of communities for the harms they have suffered.  The complaints outline how the Cerrejón mine, one of the largest open-pit mines in the world, is linked to the forced displacement of indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities and the widespread, persistent and extreme pollution of the air and water in the vicinity of the mine. High concentrations of harmful metals, which can cause diseases such as cancer, were found by Colombia’s Constitutional Court to exist in the blood of those living nearby. The complaints point to Cerrejón’s failure to comply with multiple Colombian court judgments against it. In September, several prominent UN human rights experts called for some of the mine’s operations to be suspended following a request to intervene by Wayuu indigenous people. The complaints allege that the parent companies of the Cerrejón mine, as its joint owners, are responsible under the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises for the harms caused by its operations. Separate complaints have also been lodged against Dublin-based Coal Marketing Company (CMC), which is the exclusive marketer of coal from the Colombian mine, as well as Ireland’s Electricity Supply Board (ESB), which has been a major purchaser of the mine’s coal. In 2019, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination recommended that Ireland “consider stopping purchasing coal from the Cerrejón mine”.  All five complaints have been lodged with the relevant National Contact Points for the OECD, which are tasked with ensuring that companies comply with the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. Director of GLAN Dr Gearóid Ó Cuinn said: “These parallel complaints in four different countries point to a systematic failure to respect basic human rights standards from the extraction, to the marketing, to the purchasing of Cerrejon coal. The long-standing abuses at the mine have been so egregious that there is no way for enterprises to respect human rights law and do business with Cerrejón.” Sorley McCaughey of Christian Aid Ireland said: “We see the impact that corporate human rights abuses are having in every corner of the world and the Cerrejón case underscores the inadequacy of voluntary guidelines for multinational companies. Governments globally, including the UK and Ireland, must introduce mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation for companies to ensure they do not undermine the human rights of workers or the communities in which they work.” Rosa María Mateus Parra, lawyer with CAJAR, a Colombian human rights organisation and signatory to the complaints, said: “This is a striking example of the role played by large multinational companies in fuelling injustice. The people of La Guajira have borne the huge social and environmental costs of the mine, while harmful fossil fuel coal is exported around the world in the midst of the climate crisis and a small number of companies record huge profits.” Notes for editors If upheld the complaints filed in Australia, Switzerland and the UK would require joint-owners BHP, Glencore and Anglo American to close down the Cerrejón mine and compensate the affected communities for the harms it has caused. If upheld the separate complaint in Ireland against Dublin-based CMC would require it to stop selling Cerrejón coal. The complaint was submitted by Global Legal Action Network (GLAN), supported by Christian Aid Ireland, the Centro de Investigación y Educación Popular (CINEP), the Colectivo de Abogados ‘José Alvear Restrepo’ (CAJAR), Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), ABColombia and ASK - Arbeitsgruppe Schweiz Kolumbien. The Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) is a non-profit organisation that works to pursue innovative legal actions across borders to challenge powerful actors involved in human rights violations and systemic injustice by working with affected communities. GLAN has offices in the UK (London) and Ireland (Galway) | @glan_law | www.glanlaw.org.  press contacts: Victor Quintanilla (México), AIDA, [email protected], +5215570522107 Dr Gearóid Ó Cuinn (Director), GLAN, [email protected], +447521203427   

Read more
Oceans

International alert issued on threats of uncontrolled fishing near Galapagos

The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) and the Ecuadorian Coordinator of Organizations for the Defense of Nature and the Environment (CEDENMA) sent an international alert about the problem and threats of uncontrolled fishing on the high seas, particularly in the vicinity of the Galapagos Marine Reserve. The document calls for the adoption of preventive, urgent and effective measures to stop overfishing from causing irreversible damage to ecosystems and species in the Galapagos Islands and throughout the Tropical Eastern Pacific. The call comes after an industrial fleet of 260 fishing boats (243 flying the Chinese flag)—one of the largest in the world—was registered in July in Ecuador's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), near the Galapagos Marine Reserve. The fleet included vessels from companies with records of violations of sovereign rights and the jurisdiction of coastal states, such as illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, rule breaking and intentional environmental degradation. "The ocean is a highly connected system where what happens in one area will affect many others, so coordinated and cooperative actions between countries are key for the effective conservation of marine resources," explained Gladys Martinez, Senior Attorney with AIDA's Marine Biodiversity and Coastal Protection Program. "The role of international law is also fundamental in the sense that countries must enforce in good faith what has been agreed upon in conventions, treaties and other international instruments aimed at protecting the ocean.” The alert was sent to authorities overseeing the following international treaties and organizations: the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, and the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, the World Trade Organization, the Permanent Commission for the South Pacific (CPPS), the Eastern Tropical Pacific Marine Corridor (ETPMC) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Overfishing in the high seas (areas beyond national jurisdiction) can affect not only exploited areas, but also nearby marine and coastal ecosystems, as well as the food security of less developed countries. Therefore, activities such as those recorded in July represent a serious threat to the Galapagos Islands and three other World Heritage Sites—Cocos, Malpelo and Coiba in Costa Rica, Colombia and Panama, respectively—as well as to biodiversity on the high seas. "At CEDENMA we are very concerned about the situation related to industrial fishing activities in international waters that affect the fishing, biological and ecological resources of the seas under Ecuadorian jurisdiction and the Tropical Eastern Pacific region," said Gustavo Redín, President of CEDENMA. "We therefore urge Ecuadorian authorities to act on this issue and defend this natural heritage, which is unique in the world." The alert details the ecological, economic and social importance of the Galapagos; the current fishing situation inside and outside of the Marine Reserve; the impacts that overfishing on the high seas has on local fauna; the international obligations that countries have to protect the ocean and its resources; and the regional mechanisms for coordination between countries on marine conservation. Finally, AIDA and CEDENMA request a series of measures from the international organizations and authorities in charge of treaty compliance, including that they: Urgently investigate the facts set out in the document. Urge the Government of China and other governments with vessels present in the vicinity of Ecuador's EEZ to comply with their obligations to protect highly migratory species. Urge the Ecuadorian State to improve its monitoring efforts to effectively protect valuable natural resources. Review China's fishing subsidies, which are encouraging overfishing on the high seas. Continue negotiations within the framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity so that State Parties commit to protecting 30 percent of the ocean by 2030, including areas on the high seas and highly productive areas such as the Galapagos Islands. Urge Ecuador to continue supporting the negotiations to reach a global agreement for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (the High Seas Treaty) and to favor fishing management in that part of the ocean. Adopt coordinated, joint, and cooperative actions among the countries of the Eastern Tropical Pacific in favor of marine conservation. Strengthen the application of the rules that bind coastal states to ensure that fishing activities on the high seas are subject to standards of sustainability and the protection of marine biodiversity. Press contact: Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, [email protected], +5215570522107  

Read more
Indigenous Rights, Mining

Mexico’s Federal Mining Law threatens human rights of indigenous peoples

International civil society organizations submitted amicus curiae briefs to the Mexican Supreme Court in support of the State of Puebla-based Masewal people’s constitutional action.Groups also delivered to the Court’s Second Chamber more than 4,000 signatures supporting the defense of indigenous people’s rights, collected through www.change.org.mx International civil society organizations are supporting a lawsuit filed by the Masewal indigenous people of Cuetzalan del Progreso, based in the Sierra Norte of the Mexican state of Puebla, against Mexico’s Mining Law. The Masewal request that the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) declare the law unconstitutional because it violates indigenous peoples’ fundamental rights. Earthjustice, the Environmental Defender Law Center (EDLC) and the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) filed separate amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) briefs to provide information in order to help the SCJN rule on litigation initiated by the Altepetajpianij Maseual Council and the Mexican Center for Environmental Law (CEMDA). The constitutional suit, originally filed in March 2015, argues that Mexico adopted the new Mining Law in violation of indigenous rights by not previously consulting or informing indigenous peoples before passing the law. As a result, the law failed to take into account indigenous values or perspectives and contained no mechanism to protect their human rights, even though many mining concessions already affect their territories. Above all, this law violates indigenous peoples’ rights to self-determination by excluding them from decision-making on mining within their territories, thus threatening local communities’ quality of life. “As the First Peoples, we are convinced that, in order to have a good life –Yeknemilis, as we say in Nahuatl– it is necessary that we be well and have social peace. And we cannot be well, nor can we build social peace in our territories, when extractive projects such as destructive mining threaten our way of life,” the Masewal people told SCJN justices in their brief. “Our contribution presented in our amicus brief highlights that Mexico’s international obligations require free, prior, and informed consultations with indigenous peoples before approving any legislative measure that affects them, especially when it comes to their territorial rights,” said Guillermo Zúñiga, Earthjustice international attorney.  “This also includes laws on the extraction of natural resources found in their territories, which applies directly to the case of the Mining Law.” “Mining concessions cannot be granted solely based on mining legislation. A higher-level legal framework, based on human rights and environmental law, and on the interrelation between the two issues, is must be applied in this case. This broader, legal framework determines and limits the granting of mining titles in the case of lands and territories,” says EDLC in its amicus’ conclusions. "Mexico’s Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation has the opportunity to set an exemplary precedent for the region with respect to the protection of indigenous rights," said attorney Carlos Lozano Acosta of AIDA. "In turn, the SCJN can learn from regional experience, adopting the relevant standards that courts in other countries have provided in favor of indigenous peoples, as evidenced in our amicus brief." Letters of support from other indigenous groups in Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, Bolivia, and Guatemala, as well as 4,091 signatures collected through the platform change.org.mx as of June 26, were sent to the Ministers of the SCJN’s Second Chamber supporting the Masewal People's suit. press contacts Ricardo Ruiz (Mexico), CEMDA, 5559644162, [email protected] Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, 5570522107, [email protected] Robert Valencia (US), Earthjustice, [email protected]  

Read more
Indigenous Rights, Mining

Belo Sun project puts Amazon at serious risk of contamination

The Canadian company developing Belo Sun is failing to take sufficient measures to prevent a planned gold mine from contaminating groundwater and surface water sources. The company also plans to use large quantities of cyanide, a substance highly dangerous to the health of people and ecosystems. Altamira, Brazil. A technical evaluation concluded that a gold mine planned for the Volta Grande of the Xingu River, deep in the Brazilian Amazon, risks contaminating water sources and harming the area’s indigenous and riverine communities. A project of the Canadian company Belo Sun Mining Corp., the mine could leech contaminating fluids, and would employ high quantities of cyanide, as well as other chemical processes that could, unless properly implemented, cause acidic waste to reach aquifers and rivers. The analysis prepared by Andrés Ángel, geologist and scientific advisor to the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), found inconsistencies in the information the company has published in the environmental licensing process. In the 2015 feasibility report presented to the project's investors, Ángel found that the company stated that the area’s soil and shallow rocks are impermeable, that is, contaminants cannot seep through them. However, in 2012 and 2016 environmental impact studies, Belo Sun shows the regulatory authorities data, descriptions and analyses that contradict what was said in 2015, going so far as to say that the aforementioned soils and rocks behave like porous or fractured aquifers. In recent studies, the general design of the project and the management measures proposed by the company, which do not even include installing liners to prevent leaching under certain structures, are insufficient to reduce the risk of surface and groundwater contamination, the expert explained. The evaluation also warns of the use of large quantities of cyanide as the method of choice for the separation of gold. It’s expected that between 330 and 390 grams per ton of processed material will be used, out of an estimated total of 116 million tons of ore. "Less polluting and dangerous alternatives exist, including the export of polymetallic concentrates where the separation of material of economic interest occurs later. In the Amazon rainforest, it would be essential to consider this option" says Ángel. The report also highlights that cyanide can be lethal even in very low doses for both aquatic fauna and people, and points out the risks of transporting this substance through low quality road and fluvial infrastructure. Another serious risk highlighted by the study is the generation of acid drainage as a result of the chemical process planned by the company to eliminate the cyanide used, and as a cumulative impact after the project's lifetime, taking into account that some units were classified as having moderate acid generation potential. Although an active treatment (the addition of lime to effluents) is proposed for this purpose, such a measure implies greater demand for reagents and, therefore, greater total environmental impacts. Finally, Ángel highlighted the lack of information on the synergistic impacts between the Belo Monte Dam—which already affects the area—and the downstream mining project in the reduced flow section of the Xingu River, which in turn will determine the type and extent of the mine's risks in the event of serious failures. The Brazilian justice system suspended Belo Sun’s installation license in 2017 because the company did not conduct studies on the mine's impact on indigenous communities or comply with the requirement for a free, prior and informed consultation process. Belo Sun submitted the studies of the indigenous component to the National Indian Foundation (FUNAI) in early 2020 and is awaiting an assessment and response from the entity. Ángel's assessment was presented to FUNAI and the Secretary of State for the Environment (SEMAS) of Pará, the entities responsible for granting licenses for the project. The expert opinion joins two others presented as part of a joint effort by independent researchers whose work explicitly demonstrates the unfeasibility of the Belo Sun project as it is currently conceived. The previous opinions focused on the negative impacts of the project on the ichthyofauna, and on the fragility of the environmental impact studies submitted by Belo Sun from a geological point of view. In addition to the independent researchers, several organizations have denounced the social and environmental unfeasibility of the project, including the Xingu+ Network, the Xingu Alive Forever Movement, Amazon Watch, the Socio-Environmental Institute (ISA), International Rivers, Above Ground and AIDA. Contacts Marina Terra (Brazil), ISA, [email protected] Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, [email protected], +5215570522107  

Read more