Press Release

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
Human Rights, Indigenous Rights

Victims of business-influenced human rights violations face obstacles to achieving justice

The asymmetry of power between companies and affected people, among other factors, makes access to justice difficult in the Americas. Organizations provided detailed information on this problem during a hearing before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). Santiago, Chile. Across the Americas, people and communities whose human rights have been violated by business activities face obstacles when exercising their right to access justice and achieve reparations for damages done. They are often confronted with criminalization, harassment and threats. Among other reasons, the situation reflects the reality that, in many countries, businesses are not properly controlled and may even receive government incentives to continue operations, despite the fact that they violate human rights. In a hearing before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, civil society organizations[1] demonstrated, through emblematic cases in South America, that this is a problem that happens throughout the region. One of these cases occurred in Brazil on November 5, 2015, when a dam of mining waste owned by Samarco burst in the Río Doce basin. The rupture caused the worst socio-environmental disaster in the country’s history: tons of toxic sludge moved down the river, destroying homes, schools, crops and livestock on its slow and deadly path to the Atlantic Ocean. The government and the company have since closed the case on the disaster, after reaching a settlement in which the victims were not even able to participate. “I lived a quiet life. I never would have expected to see what I saw, to witness families destroyed. We need employment, but we need it responsibly, not in a way that ends up killing people. We are asking for help now, because we can’t let these companies do whatever they want. If this Commission can help us, we would be grateful,” said Antonio Gregorio Santos, a victim of the case in Brazil. In the hearing, the organizations also referred to the case of Southern Peaks Mining, financed by the British-owned Barclays Bank, in which they are accused of breaching agreements with Mala communities in Peru. Here the victims found persecution and illegal detention in their search for justice. “We have identified various barriers to access to justice for the victims. Some—such as socio-economic, cultural and linguistic barriers—were identified in the Commission’s Report on indigenous peoples, afro-descendent communities and extractive industries,” said María José Veramendi Villa, attorney at the Inter-American Association for Environmental Defense, one of the petitioning organizations at the hearing. “Many obstacles are exacerbated in disputes with companies due, in large part, to the sharp asymmetry that exists in this relationship, expressed, for example, in political interference on the part of companies and in the lack of adequate independent safeguards for judicial power in many countries of South America.” The organizations requested that the Commission remind the States of their obligation to guarantee access to justice for those who have suffered human rights violations at the hands of companies, and urge them to strengthen domestic legislation accordingly. They also requested that the Commission develop binding standards regarding business and human rights in its rulings on petitions and individual cases—as well as in its thematic reports—in particular with regards to access to redress mechanisms. Finally, they highlighted the work of those who defend human rights against the actions of companies and reminded States that they must provide adequate conditions for their operation.  [1] Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA, regional); Centro de Información sobre Empresas y Derechos Humanos (CIEDH, regional); Centro por la Justicia y el Derecho Internacional (CEJIL, regional); Centro de Derechos Humanos y Ambiente (CEDHA, Argentina); Campanha para parar o poder das Corporações (Brasil); Justiça Global (Brasil); Pensamiento y Acción Social (PAS, Colombia); Project on Organizing, Development, Education, and Research (PODER, México); Fundar Centro de Análisis e Investigación A.C (México); Proyecto de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales (ProDESC, México); Centro Mexicano de Derecho Ambiental (CEMDA, México); Código DH - Comité de Defensa Integral de Derechos Humanos Gobixha (México) y Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos (Perú).  

Read more
Toxic Pollution, Human Rights

IACHR urges Peru to protect 14 additional people affected by pollution in La Oroya

The Commission did so by extending the precautionary measures originally granted in 2007. The decision arrives six years after it was requested, and confirms the severity of health deterioration in La Oroya. It also confirms that the life and integrity of affected people are at risk, and require urgent and adequate protection by the Peruvian State. Washington DC, USA. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) urged the Peruvian government to protect the life and integrity of 14 additional people affected by toxic pollution in the city of La Oroya. They join the 65 people already protected by precautionary measures granted by the international body in 2007. The decision reaffirms that the health of the beneficiaries has deteriorated severely, they continue to be at risk, and their government must provide prompt and adequate care. The Interamerican Association of Environmental Defense (AIDA)—together with the Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos (APRODEH), the Centro de Derechos Humanos y Ambiente (CEDHA) and Earthjustice—represents the victims who benefit from the precautionary measures before the Commission. We express our satisfaction with the Commission’s decision, which arrives six years after it was originally requested. A metal smelter operated by Doe Run Peru is the source of the heavy metal contamination in La Oroya. The Commission has established that the lack of integral and specialized medical care, as well as health deterioration over time, could affect the right to life and integrity of the beneficiaries of the precautionary measures, which now number 79. “The extension of the precautionary measures reaffirms the urgent and serious situation threatening the life and integrity of the people of La Oroya. We hope the State fully complies with the provisions in favor of all of the beneficiaries, providing them with adequate and specialized medical attention,” said María José Veramendi Villa, AIDA attorney. The Commission’s decision states that the government of Peru must conduct the medical evaluations necessary to determine the levels of lead, cadmium and arsenic in the blood of affected people, in order to provide them with appropriate medical care, in accordance with international standards. The government must also report on the actions taken to investigate the facts that led to the extension of the precautionary measures, in order to avoid their repetition.    Our case on the human rights violations committed against the affected people remains pending the final decision of the Commission. AIDA and APRODEH expect that the report will hold the Peruvian government responsible for said violations.  

Read more
Freshwater Sources, Mining, Toxic Pollution

Organizations condemn Eco Oro’ threat to sue Colombia over efforts to protect páramos

The Canadian company developing the Angostura gold mine in the high-altitude wetlands, or páramo, of Santurbán, has announced that it could file an international arbitration suit against Colombia over measures to protect the páramo, which is an important source of water in the country. Washington/Ottawa/Bogotá/Bucaramanga/Ámsterdam – Civil society organizations condemn Eco Oro Minerals’ announcement that it will initiate international arbitration against the Colombian state. Eco Oro has stated its intention to sue Colombia under the investment chapter of the Canada Colombia Free Trade Agreement over measures that the Andean state has taken to protect the Santurbán páramo and páramos around the country from harmful activities such as large-scale mining. Eco Oro Minerals’ Angostura proposed gold mine in Santurbán has financial backing from the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation. The company argues that it will lose money because of the demarcation of the páramo and the recent decision from the Constitutional Court of Colombia reaffirming the prohibition against mining in all Colombian páramos. The company stated in a news release that it could bring the dispute to international arbitration and seek “monetary compensation for the damages suffered.” “Since the Angostura project got underway, it has been clear that páramos are constitutionally and legally protected and that this project could affect Santurbán, such that it might not be authorized. States should not be sanctioned for protecting their water sources, given that they are doing so in accordance with national and internacional obligations,” remarked Carlos Lozano Acosta from the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). The páramos are the source of 70% of the fresh water that is consumed in Colombia and are essential for mitigating climate change.  The proposed gold mine was already the subject of a complaint to the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman of the International Finance Corporation (IFC). The Committee in Defense of the Water and Páramo of Santurbán filed the complaint in 2012. The IFC is the part of the World Bank Group exclusively focused on the private sector. A report based on this investigation is expected in the coming months. “The implication and the irony of Eco Oro’s statement is that the IFC’s investment in the company could be used to litigate against member states of the World Bank. It’s time for the IFC to withdraw its investment from this company,” stated Carla García Zendejas from CIEL. “In 2011, the Colombian Ministry of the Environment denied an environmental permit for the Angostura project, demonstrating its inviability. The Constitutional Court’s decision reaffirmed this, finding that the right to water and the protection of the páramos takes precedent over the economic interests of companies trying to develop mining projects in these ecosystems,” commented Miguel Ramos from the Santurbán Committee. “Just as has we have seen in El Salvador, where the state is being sued for US$250 million for not having granted a Canadian company a mining permit when the company did not even fulfill local regulations, the international arbitration system enshrined in neoliberal investment agreements is a real threat to the sovereignty of states and peoples to decide over highly important issues, such as water,” said Jen Moore from MiningWatch Canada. The organizations call on the company to abstain from arbitration against the Colombian state and note the risk that other companies with projects in the Santurbán páramo could follow Eco Oro’s example. Find additional information here. 

Read more
Freshwater Sources, Toxic Pollution

AIDA celebrates historic decision to suspend fumigation with glyphosate in Colombia

AIDA calls on the National Environmental Licensing Agency to immediately cancel the permit authorizing the chemical spraying program. Thanks to more than 24,000 people who signed a petition on Change.org to suspend fumigation and to colleagues and organizations that participated in the campaign. Bogota, Colombia. The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) welcomes the Colombian government’s decision to suspend the aerial spraying of coca and poppy crops with glyphosate in the country. To implement this decision, the National Environmental Licensing Agency must rule immediately and cancel the permit granted to the chemical spraying program. "This is a historic moment for health, the environment, and respect for law in Colombia," said Astrid Puentes Riaño, Co-Director of AIDA. "We know it was a complex decision, but in light of a policy that has proved ineffective and caused serious damage, it was also a smart decision to change course and find real solutions." AIDA has followed the Illicit Crop Eradication Program in Colombia since the late 1990s. We have repeatedly decried the serious damage to health and the environment caused by the glyphosate mixture applied in Colombia, and advocated more appropriate alternatives to eradicate coca and poppy crops. The decision to suspend the spraying, made last night by the National Narcotics Council with an overwhelming majority of seven votes to one, will become effective if the National Environmental Licensing Agency revokes the permit authorizing the program. AIDA believes that the permit should be canceled immediately because the program was designed to use glyphosate, and without it the program no longer makes sense. One day before the decision, AIDA delivered a petition to suspend the spraying, with more than 24,000 signatures, to the Minister of Justice, who also chairs the Narcotics Council. The petition, posted on Change.org, was sponsored by AIDA in conjunction with the Institute for Studies of Development and Peace (INDEPAZ) and the Observatory of Crops and Growers Declared Illicit, with support from Washington Office on Latin America and Latin American Working Group. In one week the petition received 24,933 signatures. "We thank everyone who signed and those who for years have requested this change in policy; this is a shared achievement," said Hector Herrera, AIDA attorney and coordinator of the Environmental Justice Network in Colombia. "We look forward to creation of a technical committee to make recommendations and hope that it is participatory and transparent." The suspension of the fumigation program followed a finding, issued by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, that glyphosate may be carcinogenic. This finding led the Ministry of Health to recommended suspending the program, which Colombia’s Constitutional Court and other national courts had unsuccessfully requested years before, citing the precautionary principle. This principle, found in international environmental law, was incorporated into Colombian legislation in 1993. It holds that in the absence of scientific certainty, when a risk of serious or irreversible health or environmental damage may be present, the authorities should take steps to avoid that risk. In the case of spraying, the requirements for applying the precautionary principle are met. Although there is no absolute scientific certainty of causal harm, more than 15 years of evidence points to possible serious and irreversible damage to health and the environment, including risk of cancer and skin diseases, damage to amphibians and fish, and damage to forests and food crops. The Colombian government, for the sake of caution, finally suspended spraying to prevent further damage.  

Read more