Press Release

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
Toxic Pollution, Climate Change, Human Rights

COP25: Organizations call on governments to improve air quality and, with it, slow the climate crisis

In a public letter, environmental and social organizations from Latin America and around the world urge governments to limit short-lived climate pollutants in their international climate commitments, which must be submitted to the United Nations by March 2020. Madrid, Spain. Governments must include ambitious and measurable targets for the reduction of short-lived climate pollutants in their new climate commitments, more than 100 organizations said in an open letter presented today, on the occasion of Human Rights Day, at the twenty-fifth Conference of the Parties (COP25) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. "Mitigating short-lived climate pollutants implies reducing global warming in the short term and, at the same time, advancing in the decontamination of our cities," said Javier Dávalos, coordinator of the Climate Change Program at the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). These pollutants are sometimes called "super climate pollutants" because they contribute to the climate crisis with much more intensity than carbon dioxide (CO2). As their name indicates, they stay a relatively short time in the atmosphere—from days to decades—unlike CO2, which can remain for millennia. Short-lived climate pollutants include black carbon, methane, tropospheric ozone and hydrofluorocarbons. They degrade air quality, affect glacial areas, and reduce crop yields. Poor air quality is the world's most deadly environmental problem. Each year, more than four million people die from the health damages caused by air pollution. The benefit of reducing these harmful emissions has been backed by science. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which brings together experts on the subject, stressed that to tackle global warming we must incorporate the mitigation of non-CO2 pollutants, specifically black carbon and methane. In addition, more than 11,000 scientists from around the world noted that the early reduction of short-lived climate pollutants would reduce warming by more than 50 percent over the next several decades. "The coming update of Nationally Determined Contributions opens up the possibility of governments betting on the elimination of these pollutants and thus contributing effectively to the fight against climate change and poor air quality," said Florencia Ortúzar, AIDA attorney. The deadline for governments to update their contributions is March 2020. That’s why the signatory organizations have called for the inclusion of ambitious and measurable goals for the reduction of these short-lived climate pollutants, and for governments to detail how the targets will be implemented, monitored and reported in the new commitments before the United Nations. "The solutions needed to reduce and eliminate each of the four short-lived climate pollutants are not mysteries. They are known and have been proven. But we need governments to prioritize those solutions if we are going to be able to avoid the worst impacts of climate change," commented Amanda Maxwell, director of the Latin America Project for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). In addition to the open letter, the organizations have launched an online petition for the cause to be supported with signatures from individuals around the world. Both problems, the climate crisis and poor air quality, most severely affect the most vulnerable segments of the population, among them children, pregnant women and the elderly. Confronting poor air quality is a human rights issue.   Read the letter to governments. Read and sign the citizen petition. pRESS CONTACTS Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, [email protected], +521 5570522107 Fabiola Nuñez, NRDC, [email protected], +1 (646) 889-1405 Renata Assumpção (Brazil), Instituto Alana, [email protected] Ricardo Ruiz (Mexico), CEMDA, [email protected], +5215559644162  

Read more
Large Dams, Accountability and Transparency, Human Rights

Inter-American Development Bank to investigate Ituango hydroelectric project

Washington D.C. In a historic decision, the Board of Executive Directors of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) approved an international investigation of the Bank’s private lending arm, IDB Invest, for its investment in the Ituango hydroelectric project. Located in the department of Antioquia, the Ituango dam has had a devastating impact on thousands of people across four departments and 27 municipalities in Colombia. The investigation’s main objective will be to determine whether—when financing this megaproject in a region of Colombia that continues to be affected by high levels of violence and resurgent armed conflict—the Bank complied with the social and environmental standards that it is obligated to uphold. The investigation will also examine whether any non-compliance by the Bank is connected to the serious harm that has been sustained by affected communities. “As those who have been affected by the Ituango dam, we demand that the investigation be rigorous and independent,” declared Isabel Zuleta, spokesperson for Movimiento Ríos Vivos in Colombia, which represents the affected communities. “For more than a decade, our communities have denounced the serious problems that the project has caused. These problems have been further exacerbated by the multiple emergencies that have occurred since 2018 and that continue to this day. We hope that, with this international investigation, the voices of victims and opponents of the project will finally be heard.” The investigation originated in a complaint filed by 477 people affected by the Ituango dam project. In the complaint, the affected communities—which are represented by Movimiento Ríos Vivos—emphasize that the Bank’s own policies require that the projects it finances must be sustainable, participatory, and in conformity with national legislation. In the case of the Ituango dam, none of this has happened. In the complaint, the communities indicate that the project lacked an adequate environmental impact assessment and that it did not allow for the participation of communities or provide access to information. They emphasize that the project has been advanced in a context marked by human rights violations, the disproportionate use of force, and increasing violence against people who defend their land and water. They also point out the pattern of discrimination faced by communities for deciding to oppose the project, as well as by women affected by the project. As the complaint lays out, all of this contradicts the social and environmental standards that the IDB must apply to its investments. Further, the complaint was filed in the wake of a humanitarian crisis that endangered the lives of thousands of people in the area surrounding the dam’s construction site. The crisis began after two of the dam’s diversion tunnels were blocked with cement, when a third tunnel became obstructed and the river’s flow increased dramatically. The resulting landslides and flooding forced thousands of people to be evacuated from their homes in a poorly planned, ad hoc manner, and many remain displaced to this day. No other development project in Colombia has caused a humanitarian crisis of this magnitude. This crisis reveals the inadequacy of both the impact assessment and the environmental regulation of the project, which—despite these deficiencies—was nevertheless approved. The state of emergency in the area affected by the crisis has yet to be lifted, and neither the government nor the regulatory agencies in Colombia have ruled out the possibility that the dam could collapse altogether. Even in this critical context, the affected communities sought to engage in a process of dialogue and dispute resolution with the company behind the dam project, which would have been facilitated by the IDB’s accountability mechanism. However, the company refused to participate in such a dialogue. For this reason, as the next step in the process following from the complaint, the accountability mechanism recommended this investigation. The communities affected by the Ituango dam, who live in the river basin of the Cauca River and its tributaries, are accompanied in the complaint process by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), and International Accountability Project (IAP). The Ituango dam is expected to be the largest hydropower plant in Colombia, capable of generating 2,400 MW of electricity. Although the dam’s 79-kilometer-long reservoir was filled nearly two years ago, however, the dam has yet to generate any electricity. Moreover, the project has flooded 4,500 hectares without first removing the area’s vegetation, which is now generating large quantities of methane, a greenhouse gas. This flooding was undertaken even before the dam structure itself was completed and without informing, relocating, or compensating communities in the impacted area. IDB Invest has invested millions of dollars in the project and facilitated an additional billion-dollar investment in the project by other international banks. These investments have been maintained despite the grave crisis caused by the project. press contacts: Isabel Zuleta, Movimiento Ríos Vivos, [email protected] (Spanish only) Carla García Zendejas, Center for International Environmental Law, [email protected]                   Victor Quintanilla, Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense, [email protected]   Alexandre Sampaio, International Accountability Project, [email protected]   Note for editors: The investigation will be conducted by the Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism (MICI) of the Inter-American Development Bank. As an international accountability mechanism, the MICI addresses complaints from people and communities affected by IDB-funded development projects.  The investigation will be carried out within a maximum period of nine months, in light of the high complexity of the case. Among the aspects of the project that will be investigated are the following: Whether the area of influence was adequately assessed and the affected population properly identified; The heightened levels of conflict and insecurity in the area surrounding the dam, and its differentiated impacts on women; The participation of communities, which—in the opinion of the communities themselves—has been seriously lacking; The relationship between the project and the damage caused; The deficiencies in the project’s resettlement plans and supposed compensation; The assessment of the risk of disasters, and access to information about these risks.  

Read more
Climate Change, Oceans

Ocean scientists and NGOs call time on government neglect of earth’s life support system

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on the Ocean and Crysophere in a Changing Climate reveals the extent of the crisis facing humanity as the ocean and its services begin to show signs of collapse. Although the ocean is inextricably linked with the climate, the two working together to make planet Earth habitable, this is the first time that the IPCC has turned its attention to the marine realm.  The resulting report conveys what marine scientists and NGOs have been saying for years, that the ocean is beginning to crumble under an onslaught of needless stressors from overfishing to pollution, compounded by climate breakdown. The effect of climate breakdown is the most serious, creating acidification, heating and deoxygenation. These three factors have been present in every mass extinction event in Earth’s history; all three are active in the ocean now. Professor Dan Laffoley of the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas: “We are an ocean world, run and regulated by a single ocean and we are pushing that life support system to its very limits through heating, deoxygenation and acidification. We are well past 'wake up calls' - what we need now is enlightened self-interest to deliver the actions that protect the ocean and climate and which in turn protect and support humanity.” The timescales at work within the ocean mean that changes already put into its system – such as warming – will remain at work for hundreds of years, consequently, even with immediate action to curb temperature rise and cut CO2 emissions, ocean services to the planet could still be at risk. This is why it is so important that all extraneous stressors on the ocean which can be controlled, are.  Overfishing, pollution, destruction of habitats, ecosystems and biodiversity are all stressors which can be stopped to support the resilience of the ocean to withstand the climate crisis. Gladys Martínez, senior attorney of the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA): “The IPCC report makes it crystal clear that time is running out for ocean action. We have a small window of opportunity to achieve a strong High Seas Treaty by 2020 and to protect at least 30% of the ocean by 2030, two measures that will help defend the resilience of the ocean. The treaty is being negotiated before the United Nations and states must complete it by 2020, in line with the UN General Assembly resolution and demonstrating high ambitions.” Although the picture painted by the IPCC is undeniably bleak, there are measures which can be taken now to help bolster the resilience of the ocean and which governments need to finally and robustly take action on. State parties to the legally binding Convention on Biological Diversity will negotiate new targets to protect biodiversity at a meeting in 2020. The target for marine biodiversity should be to protect at least 30% of the ocean through implemented highly and fully protected areas, with the remaining 70% of the ocean sustainably managed. Bringing an end to overfishing and pollution in all its forms and preventing further biodiversity, ecosystem and habitat loss are essential measures within our reach. Tackling climate breakdown and holding warming at or as close to 1.5 degrees Celsius as possible is essential if the ecosystem services of the ocean are to survive. All states need to commit to new and more ambitious plans (NDCs) in 2020 to achieve this. Press contacts: Victor Quintanilla in Mexico - [email protected], +521 5570522107 Patricia Roy in Paris - [email protected], +34 696 905 907 Mirella von Lindenfels in London - [email protected], +44 7717 844 352 Karen Rausch in Santiago - [email protected], +56 967354769   Sophie Hulme in NYC - [email protected], +44 7973 712869  

Read more
Large Dams

Inter-American Development Bank washes its hands of responsibility for dangerous Hidroituango dam and related human rights violations in Colombia

Fearing imminent collapse of the dam, communities in Antioquia, Colombia, have learned that the public lending arm of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) will not be investigated. Washington, DC — Last month, the Board and management of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) announced it would not approve an investigation of the Bank’s role in financing the construction of the controversial Ituango Hydroelectric Project (Hidroituango) in Colombia. The decision disregards allegations of acute and far-reaching harms caused by the project, including a humanitarian crisis that has displaced hundreds of families and caused human rights abuses, including assassination and intimidation of community members who oppose the project. The announcement comes more than a year after communities affected by the construction of the Hidroituango dam on the Cauca River in Antioquia, Colombia, filed a claim with the Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism (MICI). The claim, signed by more than 400 individuals affected by the dam, sought recourse from the MICI for the IDB’s alleged failure to comply with its own environmental and social safeguards. "We publicly denounce the IDB’s decision to evade its responsibility for the environmental damage and human rights violations resulting from the Hidroituango project, and we condemn the role of the MICI in facilitating and manifestly supporting this decision,2 remarked Isabel Zuleta, representative of Movimiento Ríos Vivos Antioquia. "It is unconscionable that the IDB is attempting to rewrite history by absolving itself from its responsibility for enabling and financing high-risk development projects that have extreme environmental impacts and blatantly violate human rights," added Zuleta. The IDB has two lending arms, one that invests in the public sector (the IDB) and another that invests in the private sector (IDB Invest). The MICI is the accountability mechanism of the bank, in charge of evaluating environmental and social compliance of the institution’s investments. The IDB initially invested in the Hidroituango project in 2012, which paved the way for and facilitated millions of dollars of additional investments from the IDB, as well as an additional billion from other international banks. The MICI, whose mandate is to provide accountability for harms caused by IDB investments, recommended no investigation of the IDB’s role in the project. Despite the decision not to review the IDB’s compliance, the MICI could continue its investigation regarding IDB Invest’s investment in the Hidroituango project. However this will depend completely on approval by the Bank’s Board. Before the dam was approved, communities warned of precisely the environmental and social impacts that have occurred. "For an institution that seeks to improve the lives of people in Latin America, the IDB’s decision is absurd, irresponsible, and disrespectful. It exemplifies a complete disregard for people living within the Cauca River Basin. Unfortunately, this disregard too often characterizes the IDB’s engagement in large-scale infrastructure projects throughout the region," said Alexandre Andrade Sampaio of International Accountability Project. "What is the value of environmental and social policies at the IDB, when they are ignored and dismissed precisely when they are most needed to protect people’s lives? This lack of accountability is unacceptable, and it demonstrates why communities affected by the actions of development banks have found it necessary to resort to the courts to secure their rights," remarked Carla García Zendejas, Senior Attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), in reference to the recent US Supreme Court decision in Jam v. IFC, which recognized that international organizations such as the IDB are not immune from litigation in US courts. "This decision exemplifies the perils of an accountability mechanism that lacks the independence and legitimacy to initiate and carry out a genuine investigation of a bank’s projects," added García Zendejas. "Since day one, the Hidroituango project carried out a weak impact assessment, inaccurate surveys of affected people and deficient environmental implementation and monitoring, but the IDB has continued to invest in it," sustained Carlos Lozano, Senior Attorney at the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). "The project was approved and is under construction without having previously carried out an evaluation of alternatives," he pointed out. Members of Movimiento Ríos Vivos Antioquia, who represent affected communities in the complaint, continue to receive ongoing threats and suffer intimidation, homicides, and other forms of violence. The IDB has shown its disregard for the volatile situation surrounding Hidroituango, including the continued presence of paramilitary groups in the area. The IDB has also ignored community requests to delay dam construction to exhume mass graves from the armed conflict in the area affected by the dam. Press Contacts: Isabel Zuleta, Movimiento Ríos Vivos Antioquia, +57 3217347264, [email protected] (Spanish) Carla Garcia Zendejas, Center for International Law, +1 202 374 2550, [email protected] Alexandre Andrade Sampaio, International Accountability Project, [email protected] Carlos Lozano Acosta, Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense, [email protected] Note for editors: The Ituango hydroelectric plant will be the largest in Colombia, with a 49-mile (79 km) reservoir that will flood a surface of 11,120 acres (4,500 hectares). The IDB Group has financed the project through various types of investment: initially $2 million in technical cooperation for the Colombian State in 2012 and then $550 million in direct investments in 2016 to Empresas Públicas de Medellín (EPM), the company in charge of the project. Additionally, the IDB manages a $1 billion dollar loan package, with funds from multiple institutional investors, including European banks. After a construction failure at the dam construction in May 2018, more than 25,000 people had to be evacuated from the area due to flooding, landslides, and avalanches. The humanitarian crisis has worsened dramatically: people have lost their property, livelihoods, and access to health and education services, which have always been meager in the area. Many people have been displaced and those who have stayed are not properly cared for. In addition, people who are members of Movimiento Ríos Vivos are discriminated against. There is a lack of food, people suffer from diseases, and shelters are deficient. People are pressured to return to risk areas and sign documents waiving their claims. In short, communities are facing a situation of systematic human rights violations as a result of the project.  

Read more