Press Release

Oceans, Toxic Pollution

Calling on Chile to protect Patagonia from the risks of the salmon industry

More than half of the salmon farms in Chile’s Magallanes Region are depleting oxygen from sensitive marine waters, suffocating marine life. Civil society organizations filed an administrative complaint and a petition calling on the government to investigate and punish farm operators, and to enforce existing regulations. Santiago, Chile. Civil society organizations filed a complaint today asking the Superintendent of the Environment to investigate damages caused by salmon farms in the Magallanes Region of Southern Patagonia, and to sanction the companies responsible. According to government reports, salmon farms in the area are depleting the water of oxygen, causing a serious threat to marine life. The organizations also launched a citizen’s petition to support the formal complaint. “Salmon farming concessions have been approved in Magallanes without a detailed assessment of the impacts the industry may have on the region,” said Florencia Ortúzar, an attorney with the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense. “The damages are already occurring: a report by the Comptroller General of the Republic found that, between 2013 and 2015, more than half of the salmon farms in Magallanes created anaerobic conditions, gravely threatening marine life.” Chile is the world’s second largest producer of salmon. The industry, which developed on coasts further north, has now entered the Magallanes region in the southermost tip of the country. The pristine waters there are highly vulnerable to human activity. Magallanes has the largest number of protected natural areas in the country; it shelters such protected species as the blue whale, the sperm whale, the Magellanic penguin, the elephant seal, the leatherback sea turtle, the southern dolphin, and the Chilean dolphin. “Salmon farms are cultivating more fish than the ecosystem can withstand. They are filling sensitive waters with chemicals and antibiotics,” said Francisco Campos-Lopez, director of #RealChile. “Those chemicals, combined with the feces of the animals, cause a dangerous lack of oxygen in the waters, endangering sea life.”    NOTE: More information available at aida-americas.org/salmonfarms Press contacts: Florencia Ortúzar, AIDA Attorney, +56 9 7335 3135, [email protected]  

Read more
Human Rights, Toxic Pollution

Lowering Peru’s air quality standards is regressive and harmful to public health

The government of Peru has proposed increasing the legal amount of sulfur dioxide in the air by more than 12 times and doubling the allowed level of particulate matter, substances known to cause serious health harms. The proposal ignores both scientific evidence and the government’s obligation to uphold conditions that are suitable for human life and health. Lima, Peru.  Peru’s Environment Ministry has proposed new National Environmental Quality Standards for air, which would impact the health of Peruvians everywhere. The proposed standard increases by more than 12 times the limit for airborne concentrations of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and doubles the allowable amount of fine particulate matter. The increased limits ignore scientific evidence that finds these substances can cause lung problems and other illnesses, particularly among the most vulnerable populations such as people with asthma, children, and the elderly. “There is overwhelming scientific evidence to conclude that sulfur dioxide pollution poses a serious health risk, particularly when the contamination reaches high levels over short periods of time, something the proposal does not take into account,” said Anna Cederstav, co-director of the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). AIDA prepared comments on the proposal that were presented to the government of Peru together with APRODEH. These pointed out that, contrary to the government’s assertion, reducing sulfur dioxide levels in the air would lead to longer life expectancy. This is because, among other reasons, sulfur dioxide also promotes the formation of PM2.5, small particulate matter that lodges in human lungs and causes acute respiratory problems such as bronchitis and pneumonia, as well as premature death. The government proposes to simultaneously double the legal limit for these extremely harmful particles. The organizations also highlighted flaws in the public consultation process. The government published the draft standard on Saturday, April 8, just before the Easter week holiday, giving only 10 working days for public comment on this critical public health issue. They also failed to make public the entire scientific and technical basis for the proposal. In so doing, the government has violated the rights to information and public participation. The comments also emphasize that the government’s proposal violates the American Convention on Human Rights and other international treaties to which Peru is a party, by failing to guarantee the human rights to life and health. While the proposed changes would impact Peru’s entire population, the residents of cities with high levels of pollution, such as La Oroya, would suffer the most severe impacts. La Oroya is an emblematic case because the metallurgical complex operating there—which has for decades been a macro-emitter of pollutants—is in the process of being sold. The government has publically acknowledged that the weakening of the air quality standards is an attempt to promote the sale of the complex. But it ignores the effects those relaxed standards would have on the people of La Oroya, who have seen significant improvements to both their air quality and their health in recent years. People affected by the pollution in La Oroya have sued the State before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in an attempt to protect their rights. For ten years, they have been granted precautionary measures due to the risk the pollution poses to their health and life; those measures were recently extended to additional people because the level of risk has continued. “Relaxing air quality standards to facilitate the sale of the complex and increase investment in Peru would be a setback for the protection of health and the environment, which could result in the State being held responsible before the Inter-American Court on Human Rights,” said Christian Huaylinos of APRODEH. “In addition, such actions would violate free trade agreements signed by Peru with the United States and the European Union.” Consult the comments sent to the Environment Ministry of Peru and more information on the case of La Oroya. Press contacts: Rodrigo da Costa Sales, AIDA, [email protected], +51 994767961 Christian Huaylinos, APRODEH, [email protected], +51 959 789 232

Read more
Large Dams, Indigenous Rights, Human Rights

Attacks against Guatemalan human rights defenders denounced

Communities and organizations appealed to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, urging the State of Guatemala, private businesses, and investors to guarantee the human rights of people and communities affected by large hydroelectric projects. They presented a report, outlining 10 different cases, which documents 273 incidents of threats, criminalization, and attacks against defenders, traditional authorities, journalists, and communities. Criminalization included 103 arrest warrants, imprisonment of 36 defenders, and the murder of 11. Washington, DC, United States.  A coalition of communities and organizations denounced human rights violations against traditional and indigenous communities in Guatemala, at a hearing before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Because of their opposition to large hydroelectric projects, the human rights defenders have been threatened, assaulted, treated as criminals, and assassinated. A report presented before the Commission, featuring 10 different cases, notes that various communities confronting these projects have faced rights abuses including violations of their rights to free, prior, informed, and culturally appropriate consultation; self-determination; due process; and life. The report also outlines how those who defend affected people and communities have been victims of threats and aggressions. The most common attacks include arrest warrants (103), assaults resulting in injuries (56), imprisonment (36), detention (25), criminalization (16), and threats (15). There have been 11 documented murders and three conflict-related deaths in communities that oppose these hydroelectric projects. At least 19 companies are linked to hydroelectric projects in Guatemala, of which 55 percent are national, 40 percent are transnational, and five percent are State-owned. The complaints emphasized that it is the duty of the State to guarantee the rights of communities, and of the people who defend them. The obligation to respect human rights also extends to operating companies and project funders. Therefore, the organizations and communities ask the Guatemalan State to: Comprehensively respect the rights of indigenous people, including the rights to self-determination; consultation; and free, prior, informed, and culturally appropriate consent. Ensure the safety of human rights defenders. Include the participation of indigenous communities in the design and implementation of their energy-development policies. They also request the companies involved to: Comply with due diligence in matters of business and human rights. Refrain from taking actions, such as filing lawsuits, that result in criminalization of and attacks on human rights defenders. Publicly recognize the positive and fundamental role of human rights defenders in democracy. The complete report (in Spanish) is available here. Authors Include: Acompañamiento de Austria (ADA); Asamblea Departamental de Pueblos de Huehuetenango (ADH); Asociación de Abogados Mayas de Guatemala; Asociación Indígena Ch`Orti` Nuevo Día; Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA); Business and Human Rights Resource Center; Consejo del Pueblo Maya (CPO) Consejo Mam; Guatemala Human Rights Commission, USA (GHRC); Guatemala Solidarity Network; Microregión de Ixquisis, San Mateo Ixtatán; The Swedish Fellowship of Reconciliation (SweFOR); PAYXAIL YAJAW KONOB (Gobierno Ancestral Plurinacional) AKATEKA, CHUJ, POPTI’, Q’ANJOB’AL; International Platform Against Impunity; Protection International; Proyecto Acompañamiento Quebec Guatemala Montréal, Canadá; Resistencia Río Dolores and Unidad de Protección a Defensoras y Defensores de Derechos Humanos (UDEFEGUA). Press contacts: Karen Hudlet, Business and Human Rights Resource Center, [email protected] Rodrigo da Costa Sales, Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), [email protected]  

Read more
Oceans

Costa Rican court issues first criminal sanction against shark finning

In a historic decision, a Puntarenas court convicted a businesswoman for shark finning. The woman had brought shark fins to port separated from the body, a practice illegal in Costa Rica, with intentions of selling them abroad. The Public Prosecutor’s indictment was supported by civil society organizations that argued her actions violated national and international laws protecting marine life.   Puntarenas, Costa Rica. On February 7, the Trial Court of Puntarenas imposed a six-month prison sentence on a Taiwanese businesswoman for illegally trading in shark fins. The woman had brought to port shark fins detached from the animals body and gathered together with a wire, a process know as finning. She had intended to sell the fins abroad. This ruling is the first time the practice, illegal under national and international law, has been punished in Costa Rica. “We are pleased that, from the power of the Judiciary, Costa Rica has sent a clear signal that its priority is to protect the country’s sustainability. The response to the finning was appropriate, and responsible fishermen and environmental authorities will applaud it as such. At Conservation International, we reiterate our commitment to sustainable fisheries, transparent management of marine resources, and control of the country’s environmental regulations,” said Marco Quesada, director of the Costa Rica Program of Conservation International (CI). In 2011, justice failed in favor of the businesswoman. That decision was rebutted by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, which obtained a second trial in which the crime was finally punished. The final sentence indicates that the businesswoman is responsible “for the crime of ordering the removal of the shark fin without the respective body, to the detriment of the natural resources” of Costa Rica. “This is a truly historic sentence, as it’s the first time there has been a criminal conviction for shark finning. We applaud the efforts of the Public Prosecutor’s Office to enforce the national laws and international commitments of Costa Rica. We hope this case will be a precedent that helps prevent this practice from happening again,” said Gladys Martínez, attorney with the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). AIDA and CI assisted in the resolution of the case, which dates from 2011, by advising the Public Prosecutor’s Office on arguments of international law. According to Costa Rican law, shark fins must arrive to port naturally attached to the shark’s body. In cases such as this one, the fins are removed and the body tossed back to sea so the fishing boats can hold as many fins as possible.   “Shark finning is a crime punishable in Costa Rica by articles 139 and 40 of the Fisheries and Aquaculture Law. In addition, Costa Rica has ratified various international treaties that oblige it to protect the environment. These obligations include the protection, conservation and sustainable use of marine resources,” reads the document provided by both organizations to the Public Prosecutor’s Office for use during the trial. Press contacts: Gladys Martínez, AIDA, [email protected], +506 8321 4263 Marco Quesada, CI, [email protected] +506 2253-0500 ext. 129/IP 5484

Read more
Mining, Freshwater Sources

World Bank divests from Eco Oro Minerals and mining project in Colombian Páramo

In an important step for the protection of Colombia’s páramos, the International Finance Corporation (IFC) – the private lending arm of the World Bank – has decided to divest from Canadian mining company Eco Oro Minerals. The company’s Angostura gold mining project is located in the Santurbán Páramo, a protected ecosystem that provides water to millions of people.  Bogota, Washington, Ottawa, Amsterdam. The International Finance Corporation (IFC), private lending arm of the World Bank Group, has decided to divest from Canadian company Eco Oro Minerals. The company’s Angostura mine is located in Colombia’s Santurbán Páramo, a protected high-altitude ecosystem that provides water to millions of people. Colombian law prohibits mining in páramos. "We applaud the Bank’s decision to side with the Committee for the Defense of Water and the  Santurbán Páramo regarding the inviability of mining in the páramo," said Alix Mancilla, representative of the Committee. "We now call on the Colombian government to abstain from issuing environmental permits to any mining project which may affect Santurbán." "The IFC’s divestment is a serious political and financial blow to mining in the Santurbán páramo," said Carlos Lozano Acosta of the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). "The Colombian government must now reflect on its lenient approach to large scale mining in páramos, which is illegal under national law." The IFC’s decision comes after a report issued by the Office of the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO), an independent accountability mechanism, which found that the IFC's investment did not adequately consider the environmental and social impacts of the project, breaching the financial institution's internal policies. The report was developed in response to a complaint the Committee filed before the CAO in 2012, with support from the international organizations included herein. "After intense public pressure, the IFC finally got the message and, by divesting, amplifies it further. The decision to divest strengthens the Colombian State’s ability to protect water and regulate in the public interest. We applaud this decision by the IFC, which will have an impact on Colombians everywhere," affirmed Carla Garcia Zendejas of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL). The IFC's decision occurs in the context of Eco Oro’s announcement that it has initiated international arbitration against Colombia, under the terms of the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), part of the World Bank. The company is filing the suit over the State’s measures to protect Colombia’s páramos. "Eco Oro Minerals' interest in Colombia is no longer about mining. Rather, it is about extorting a sovereign government for millions in taxpayer dollars and exerting pressure to weaken protections for water in Colombia. The IFC’s divestment not only extricates the Bank from a clear conflict of interest, but also highlights the presence of ill-advised mining projects in the Colombian páramo and the illegitimacy of the suit," added Garcia Zendejas of CIEL.

Read more
Mining, Freshwater Sources

Civil society urges World Bank to withdraw funding from Colombian mining project

Organizations argue that the International Finance Corporation invested in a gold mine without taking into account potential environmental impacts, thereby failing to comply with its own investment standards. The proposed mine threatens Colombia’s Santurbán Páramo, a high-Andean ecosystem that provides water to millions of people. Washington, DC.  A coalition of civil society organizations met at World Bank headquarters yesterday to demand that the International Finance Corporation (IFC), a member of the World Bank Group, withdraw its investment in the Angostura mine. The proposed gold-mining project would be located in Colombia’s Santurbán Páramo, a high-Andean ecosystem that supplies drinking water to more than two million people. The organizations also delivered a petition, signed by thousands of people from throughout the Americas, calling on IFC to withdraw its investment immediately. To present their demand, the organizations met with representatives of the IFC. They are also meeting with members of Congress and representatives of the US Department of State to discuss the situation in the Santurbán páramo and the risks its defenders face. The Committee for the Defense of Water and Páramo of Santurbán led the coalition, with support from the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), the Interamerican Association of Environmental Defense (AIDA), the Center for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO), and Mining Watch Canada.  The demand presented yesterday tops off an important year in the fight to defend Santurbán. In March, the Canadian company developing the mine, Eco Oro, announced its intention to file an international arbitration suit against the Colombian government. In February Colombia’s Constitutional Court issued a ruling that bans all oil, mining, and gas operations in the country’s páramos. In August, an independent investigation undertaken by IFC’s internal watchdog, the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman, found that the investment in Angostura did not take into account the project’s potential environmental impacts, thus failing to comply with IFC’s own investment standards.  The investigation was triggered by a complaint filed by the Committee and supported by the international organizations.   

Read more
Climate Change, Climate Change

New study confirms large dams to be a principle source of greenhouse gas emissions

Researchers from the Washington State University found that the world’s reservoirs generate 1.3 percent of all greenhouse gases produced by humankind. The finding confirms once more than large dams are unsustainable energy sources that cause great harm to the climate.  Seattle, United States. An important new study by researchers at the Washington State University found that large dams are an “underestimated” source of greenhouse gas. The findings show that all reservoirs, not only those built in tropical zones, release far greater quantities of emissions into the atmosphere than previously believed.   According to the study, gases are released from the decomposition of organic matter after artificial reservoirs flood natural areas. In fact, over the course of a year reservoirs were found to generate 1.3 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases (more than all of Canada). Eighty percent of those emissions were methane, a pollutant 34 times stronger than carbon dioxide. “Across the Americas, governments are pushing for the construction of hundreds of new large dams, arguing that dams are clean energy and will help to mitigate climate change,” explained Astrid Puentes Riaño, co-director of the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). “It’s become increasingly clear that large dams are more of a problem than a solution. World leaders must urgently start to plan and implement alternative energy solutions in order to achieve real progress in the fight against climate change.” Along with a coaltion of civil society organizations, AIDA, Amazon Watch and International Rivers have been insisting for years that operating large hydroelectric projects—such as the Belo Monte Dam in Brazil—causes severe damage to the environment, the climate, and the rights of affected communities. “Large dams are one of the most significant causes of environmental destruction in the Amazon,” said Leila Salazar-López, executive director of Amazon Watch. “In addition to emiting methane, they destroy biodiversity and the ancestral forest of thousands of indigenous and traditional communities that have lived for centuries from river ecosystems. It is imperative to calculate the true costs of large dams to understand all their impacts, and avoid causing more harm than good.” As organizations working to promote real solutions to climate change, we are committed to sharing scientific evidence about the harms of large dams to governments, international bodies, and financial institutions. "The new findings lay to rest the myth of hydropower as a clean source of electricity and underline why large hydropower should not receive climate finance," said Kate Horner, executive director of International Rivers. The results of Washington State University's  study must be considered in the inventory of emissions that contribute to climate change, as well as in the execution of program and plans aimed at solving energy needs. For more information consult: Washington State University's study. Washington State University’s press release on the study. Short video from Astrid Puentes Riaño, AIDA co-director, with a brief explanation of the research and why it is important. Our Manifesto on 10 reasons why climate initiatives should not include large dams. An open letter to governments, international institutions and financial mechanisms to stop considering large dams as clean energy and to implement real solutions to climate change. ​

Read more
Accountability and Transparency

Ombudsman finds the IFC failed to comply with its investment standards in Colombia

The office of the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman found that the International Finance Corporation cannot guarantee that the Angostura mine will not have impacts on the environment. Washington/Ottawa/Bogotá/Ámsterdam. The office of the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO) has issued its final report on the complaint brought against the International Finance Corporation's (IFC) investment in Eco Oro Minerals’ Angostura mine in the high-altitude wetlands – known as páramos – of Santurbán, Colombia. The office warned that the corporation has not met all the standards required of its investments, including an assessment of potential impacts on biodiversity. The investigation was triggered by a complaint filed by the Comité por la Defensa del Agua y el Páramo de Santurbán (Committee for the Defense of Water and the Paramo de Santurban), with the support of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), the Center for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO), the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) and MiningWatch Canada. "The biodiversity of Santurbán is critical to ensuring our water supply. Therefore, any threat to its biodiversity affects the water resources of the entire metropolitan area of Bucaramanga," said Alix Mancilla, of the Santurbán Committee. The report also states that the IFC failed to assess the impacts of the entire mining project, and instead only concentrated on the impacts of the exploration stage, despite the fact that it justifies its investment on the basis of the supposed benefits that the eventual mine would bring. The CAO found that the "potential to comply with IFC’s environmental and social standards was uncertain and potentially challenging" during the extraction phase. In its conclusion, the Ombudsman points out that "one of the stated purposes of the IFC's investment was to develop the studies necessary to determine whether the project could comply with IFC's [performance standards]. " However, the company did not complete the required studies, including an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment, a biodiversity baseline study, and critical habitat assessments. Despite repeated lack of compliance by the client, the CAO found that the "IFC has not pursued a remedy, but has made subsequent investments in the company." "If the purpose of IFC's investment was to determine the viability of the project, there is no justification for the lack of studies – studies that are required to make an investment decision. You cannot greenlight a project in such a critical region for the population of Bucaramanga without assessing its actual consequences," declared Carla Garcia Zendejas of CIEL. The IFC's response to the Ombudsman’s report did not acknowledge any wrongdoing or make commitments to address its findings. Instead, the IFC merely reiterated its justification for investing in the project, claiming that the eventual mine will bring employment and revenue. The response is silent regarding its client's intent to file an investment dispute under the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. "It is very serious that despite failures in the risk assessment, the IFC has continued to invest in the Angostura mining project," added Kris Genovese, from SOMO. “It is disappointing, but not surprising, that the IFC has failed once again to respond to the findings of a CAO investigation.”  AIDA attorney Carlos Lozano Acosta explained that “the project is illegal; that’s why its license was denied in 2011, and why the Constitutional Court ratified the prohibition of mining in páramos. It worries us that the IFC invested in a company whose project, from the beginning, was not viable, and who would file an international lawsuit against Colombia, one of the member states of the World Bank.” The report reveals that the IFC has an explicit policy of investing in junior mining companies with limited capacity to manage environmental and social issues, in countries where the regulatory framework is weak or not enforced. "It is time for the IFC to withdraw its investment in Eco Oro and stop investing in junior mining companies, as has been done in Colombia and elsewhere, knowing the serious social and environmental damage this entails and the context of impunity in which these companies are operating," stated Jen Moore of MiningWatch. "As communities affected by the mine, we will continue challenging the project in court, and we will use all legal means at our disposal to stop it, as we have done so far," affirmed Elizabeth Martinez from the Committee for Santurban. Currently, Colombia's Constitutional Court is considering a legal action filed by the Santurbán Committee with support from AIDA, concerning the lack of citizen participation in the demarcation of the wetland. A decision is expected soon. The IFC is the private-sector lending arm of the World Bank Group. The CAO is an independent accountability mechanism that receives complaints from people who may be affected by IFC investment projects.   The CAO’s report and communiqué, including the IFC’s response can be found here: Communiqué: http://www.cao-ombudsman.org/cases/document-links/documents/CAOCommuniqueEcoOroSummaryofFindingsAugust252016.pdf Report: http://www.cao-ombudsman.org/cases/document-links/documents/CAOComplianceInvestigationReportonIFCinvestmentinEcoOroMinerals-English.pdf Response by the IFC: http://www.cao-ombudsman.org/cases/document-links/documents/EcoOro-IFCManagementResponsetoCAOInvestigationReport-5August2016.pdf   

Read more
Large Dams, Indigenous Rights, Human Rights

Civil society urges the United Nations to document human rights violations committed by businesses in Mexico

A group of organizations delivered their report highlighting more than 60 cases of violations across the country. Mining, infrastructure and energy projects—including hydroelectric and wind—were responsible for the greatest number of human rights violations. Mexico City, Mexico. On the occasion of the United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights’ official visit to Mexico, a coalition of more than 100 civil society organizations, movements and networks prepared a report outlining cases of human rights violations perpetrated by corporations in Mexico. The report highlights Mexico’s current human rights crisis, which has been recognized by various UN agencies[1] and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.[2] It lays out the clear dangers facing those who protect human rights, the land and their own territory.[3] Documented cases of human rights abuses involve 50 foreign, 41 national, and eight public companies. More than half the cases involved intimidation and/or attacks against human rights defenders. The most frequent violations were to the rights to: land and territory; access to information; health; a healthy environment; and consultation and free, prior and informed consent. During the Working Group’s regional visits, affected communities will show the experts the negative impacts caused by companies linked to mining, wind power, hydroelectric dams, agribusiness, infrastructure, oil and gas exploitation, real estate, tourism and maquilas (manufacturing facilities), among others. At the suggestion of civil society, the Working Group will meet with companies including: Grupo México, Grupo Higa, Grupo BAL, Bimbo, Goldcorp, TransCanada, Eólica del Sur, and CEMEX. They will also meet with the state-run production companies, Petróleos Mexicanos (Pemex) and the Federal Electricity Commission (CFE). Situations in Mexico that systematically hinder compliance with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights include: State Capture: complicity, corruption and impunity. In many documented cases, the Mexican State, at all levels (federal, state and municipal), has served business interests above public interest. This has been evident in: the promotion of rules and regulations that benefit business interests over human rights; the use of public force against peaceful social mobilization; the support of extractive projects against community interests; the lack of inquiry and sanction by the judiciary regarding allegations of human rights abuses; and the criminalization of environmental advocates. Structural reforms that weaken the protection of human rights and support companies, such as the energy reform, which does not always consider its impacts on human rights, and does not guarantee the participation and right of access to information of affected communities. Lack of consultation and the free, prior, informed, culturally appropriate, and in good faith consent of affected communities; lack of due diligence on the part of companies; and the proliferation of megaprojects with severe impacts on human rights. Lack of access to justice and non-compliance with rules and judgments, by companies as well as the Mexican State. On multiple occasions, affected people who have reported rights violations have later been the victim of attacks. And, even if a court—including the Mexican Supreme Court— ruled in their favor, the fulfillment of that ruling was not observed. Reduction of participation mechanisms and an increase in abuses against human rights defenders. The cases illustrate an increase in murders, criminalization, threats and attacks on human rights defenders who have spoken out against mega-projects and business activities. In 2011, the United Nations Human Rights Council issued the "Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights" in order to empower States to exercise control over business activities, ensure due diligence, and guarantee access to effective and appropriate remedial measures. In order to monitor the application of these principles, the Council established the Working Group on Business and Human Rights, whose visit Mexico from August 29th to September 7th 2016 will be their second visit to Latin America. On behalf of the organizations and communities that prepared this report, we hope that the conclusions reached by the Working Group at the close of their visit will reflect what Mexico truly needs. We urge companies operating in Mexico, as well as the Mexican State, to consider the recommendations seriously and implement them in current and future operations. For more information in social media, following along: #ONUenMX   The report was created with the participation of the following organizations and human rights groups (in alphabetical order): Alianza de la Costa Verde Ambiente y Desarrollo Humano Asociación Interamericana para la Defensa del Ambiente (AIDA) Bios Iguana Campaña Nacional Sin Maíz No Hay País Cartocrítica Casa del Migrante Saltillo Centro de Derechos Humanos “Fray Bartolomé de Las Casas” Centro de Derechos Humanos “Fray Francisco de Vitoria” Centro de Derechos Humanos “Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez” (Centro Prodh) Centro de Derechos Humanos de la Montaña, Tlachinollan Centro de Derechos Humanos Toaltepeyolo Centro de Derechos Humanos Zeferino Ladrillero (CDHZL) Centro “Fray Julián Garcés” Derechos Humanos Centro de Información sobre Empresas y Derechos Humanos (CIEDH) Centro de Reflexión y Acción Laboral (CEREAL) Centro Diocesano para los Derechos Humanos “Fray Juan de Larios” Centro Mexicano de Derecho Ambiental (CEMDA) Colectivo sí a la vida No al basurero tóxico en Noria de la Sabina Comités de Cuenca Río Sonora (CCRS) Comité de Defensa Integral de Derechos Humanos Gobixha (CODIGODH) Comité de Derechos Humanos de Tabasco (CODEHUTAB) Comisión Mexicana para la Defensa y Promoción de los Derechos Humanos (CMDPDH) Consejo en Defensa de la Vida y el Territorio TiyatTlali DECA Equipo Pueblo DH Rayoactivo El Barzón Chihuahua EcoRed Feminista la Lechuza Buza Enfoque DH Estancia del Migrante en Querétaro Frente de Pueblos en Defensa de la Tierra y el Agua (FPDTA) Fundar, Centro de Análisis e Investigación Foro de Derechos Humanos y Resistencias de la Sierra de Puebla Greenpeace México Grupo de Estudios Ambientales Grupo Focal sobre Empresas y Derechos Humanos Indignación, Promoción y Defensa de los Derechos Humanos Instituto Mexicano para el Desarrollo Comunitario (IMDEC) Movimiento Ciudadano en Defensa de la Loma Movimiento Mexicano de Afectados por las Presas y en Defensa de los Ríos (MAPDER) Movimiento Mesoamericano contra el Modelo Extractivo Minero (M4) OrganicConsumersAssociation (México) Oxfam México Programa Universitario de Derechos Humanos, Programa de Incidencia, Programa de Medio Ambiente, UIA Proyecto de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales (ProDESC) Proyecto sobre Organización, Desarrollo, Educación e Investigación (PODER) Red Mexicana de Afectados por la Minería (REMA) Semillas de Vida SMR, Scalabrinianas: misión con Migrantes y Refugiados Serapaz, Servicios y Asesoría para la Paz Y la Red Nacional de Organismos Civiles de Derechos Humanos “Todos los Derechos para Todas y Todos” (conformada por 80 organizaciones en 21 estados de la República mexicana).   The information was collected based on the baseline questionnaire for documenting abuses of companies prepared by the Business Information Center and Human Rights(CIEDH) and the network(DESC) https://goo.gl/YLhbSM [1] Declaration of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, ZeidRa’ad Al Hussein, done in his visit to Mexico in October 7, 2015: http://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=16578&LangID=E [2] Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.  Human Rights situation in Mexico, (OAS.Official Documentation; OEA/Ser.L) ISBN I. Title. II.  Series. OAS. Official Documentation; OEA/Ser.L. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.Doc. 44/15 p. 11 http://www.oas.org/es/cidh/informes/pdfs/Mexico2016-es.pdf [3] Institute for Economics & Peace, Global Peace Index 2015 Measuring peace, its causes and its economic value p. 8 http://economicsandpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Global-Peace-Index-Report-2015_0.pdf Mexico´s Rank 140 out of 163 http://www.visionofhumanity.org/#page/indexes/global-peace-index/2016/MEX/OVER  

Read more
Indigenous Rights, Toxic Pollution, Human Rights

NGOs call on Mexico to protect Mayan beekeeping communities affected by cultivation of genetically modified soy

The lives, health, and integrity of indigenous people are threatened by deforestation and contamination of their land caused by the cultivation of genetically modified soy. The situation is worsening because the Mexican government has not adopted effective measures to safeguard the rights of the communities.  Washington D.C., United States. Traditional Mayan beekeeping communities, alongside a coalition of national and international organizations, have denounced the cultivation of genetically modified soy in the Mexican states of Campeche and Yucatan as damaging to the lives, health, and integrity of Mayan people, and to the health of the environment on which they depend.   On July 25, a coalition of organizations filed a complaint on behalf of Mayan communities with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). The organizations are the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA); Centro Mexicano de Derecho Ambiental (CEMDA); Greenpeace Mexico; Indignación, Promoción y Defensa de los Derechos Humanos, A.C. (Indignación); and Litiga, Organización de Litigio Estratégico de Derechos Humanos A.C. (Litiga OLE). The health and way of life of affected people—especially children, pregnant women, and the elderly—are at increasing risk from deforestation and the use, during planting, of the toxic herbicide glyphosate, which has been proved to contaminate soil and water sources. The crops have been genetically modified to resist the herbicide, which leads growers to apply it in ever greater concentrations. The organizations asked the Commission to grant precautionary measures, an action that would urge the Mexican government to implement actions that protect the rights of communities and effectively halt the cultivation of genetically modified soy in Campeche and Yucatan. Leydy Pech, representative of the Mayan communities, said, “planting genetically modified soy in Mayan territory violates our rights and our culture, which has been passed down to us from our ancestors. Because of the cultivation of soy on our lands, we have lost medicinal plants, vital trees for local bee populations, and animals, and have even seen some of our archeological sites destroyed. This harms our Mayan identity and denies us the possibility of passing that knowledge on to our children; traditional knowledge that allows us to preserve the forest and generate wellbeing for our communities.” AIDA attorney María José Veramendi added, “the Mexican government has an obligation to apply the precautionary principle and take into account the health risks that come with glyphosate and the cultivation of genetically modified soy. By not doing so, the State is failing to comply with its duty to prevent violations of the rights of Mayan communities, who are exposed to the herbicide as it drifts on wind and contaminates water sources.” The affected Mayan communities live in the municipalities of Hopelchén, in the state of Campeche, and Mérida, Tekax and Teabo, in the state of Yucatan. Permits to cultivate genetically modified soy also affect other communities in the seven states of the Mexican Republic. The communities were not consulted, nor did they give their free, prior, and informed consent, before Mexico granted the permits necessary for the cultivation of genetically modified soy in their territory. Under international law, indigenous communities must be guaranteed the right to prior consultation and informed consent. What’s more, the planting has seriously affected traditional beekeeping practices, part of Mayan culture and one of the main sources of livelihood for the communities. In addition to requesting precautionary measures, the organizations filed a petition with the IACHR denouncing violations of the rights to land and communal property, to life and personal integrity, to a healthy environment, to work, and to judicial protection and access to justice. According to the organizations, the State has not taken effective measures to safeguard the rights of affected populations despite their efforts to seek justice in domestic courts. “Although the Mayan communities obtained a favorable ruling from the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court last November, the judgment did not resolve all the human rights violations,” explained Francisco Xavier Martínez Esponda, legal representative of CEMDA. “During the consultation process, authorities neither respect traditional manners of decision-making nor meet Inter-American standards for upholding this fundamental right. Since the Mexican State could not rule on all instances of rights violations or order their rectification, we have now brought the case before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.”   

Read more