Publications
Letter to Pope Francis on the Delicate Situation of NGOs in Bolivia
Respectfully we turn to Your Holiness, on the occasion of your upcoming visit to Bolivia, as organizations that protect the environment and human rights in the Americas. We wish to share with Your Holiness our growing concern about the severe limitations imposed upon civil society organizations (CSOs) by the Bolivian government, particularly with respect to those who defend human rights and those of Mother Earth. We celebrate the historic effort to protect our Common Home through the publication of your Encyclical letter, Laudato Si’. It is our hope your text drives profound change in the politics, practices and beliefs of our governments, corporations, and civil society, and inspires every person to create a more just and sustainable world. In your Encyclical letter, Your Holiness has highlighted the substantial contributions of our planet’s CSOs in putting environmental issues on the public agenda. We are deeply grateful for this recognition and we hope that Bolivian CSOs can continue playing their essential role in the promotion of and care for Mother Earth. This requires them to be able to fully exercise their work without threats from the government, even in situations in which they do not agree. As Your Holiness understands, Bolivia has made essential contributions to the national and international recognition of the rights of Mother Earth. In 2009, the Bolivian people approved by an absolute majority their new Constitution, which recognized the right to a healthy and balanced environment for all people; consolidated the environment as a subject of rights; and upheld the rights of future generations to the same. President Evo Morales has also internationally promoted the rights of Mother Earth, the rights of indigenous peoples, and the international recognition of the human right to water. In 2010, President Morales stated, “Now it is more important to defend the rights of Mother Earth than to defend human rights, because in defending the rights of Mother Earth, we defend human rights.”[1] Bolivian civil society organizations, together with indigenous and peasant organizations, played a crucial role in solidifying this new constitutional framework. However, since 2011 their situation and relationship with the government has deteriorated, especially after the government’s decision to construct a highway through a National Park and Indigenous Territory (TIPNIS). This is because most of the indigenous communities of that territory, and many civil society organizations working to defend the environment and human rights, opposed the project, considering it a violation of their rights that would cause irreversible damage to the natural habitat. Since then, the government has implemented policies and actions to weaken and limit the work of the CSOs. In 2013, the government of Evo Morales passed two laws (Act 351 and Supreme Decree 1597) that restrict and condition the functioning of CSOs to their compliance with sectoral policies of the government, that is to say, to the discretion of government actors. For example, the government can revoke the legal status of a CSO when it considers that the organization is not complying with sectoral policies of the government.[2] The Ombudsman of Bolivia submitted a claim of unconstitutionality against those laws in 2013, the outcome of which has not yet been resolved. These laws have scared the country’s CSOs away from their work for fear of losing their legal recognition. Many have been silenced to stay in line; others have ceased operations, or have converted to other legal status to prevent harassment from the government. Both the United Nations Human Rights Council[3] and the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association have expressed worry about Act 351 and its regulatory decree. Maina Kiai, UN Special Rapporteur, has stated that such laws “restrict the right of association in accordance with laws, standards, and international principles.”[4] The government has not yet incorporated United Nations recommendations to modify those rules. On May 20, the government approved a law (Supreme Decree 2366) that authorizes the exploration of hydrocarbons in all of the country’s national protected areas. In June, President Morales threatened CSOs, particularly those that promote the protection of the environment, stating: “… I want to say to you: NGOs, foundations that impede the exploration of natural resources, will leave Bolivia…”[5] Your Holiness, as you may appreciate, the situation of CSOs, or any person or institution intending to protect the environment in Bolivia, is very delicate. We therefore respectfully request that you, in your upcoming visit to the country, may use your good offices before President Evo Morales to request that his government stop pressuring CSOs, and assume a public commitment to respect, protect, and guarantee their work in recognition of the freedom of association, freedom of expression, and political and institutional pluralism essential for the sustainability of our democracies. We are incredibly grateful for your attention, and we send our fraternal greetings in the hope that your visit and intervention can contribute to improving the protection of our Common Home in Bolivia. We’d like to take this opportunity to express our highest consideration and great esteem. Fundación Centro de Estudios Ecológicos de la República Argentina (Argentina) Abogadas y Abogados para la Justicia y los Derechos Humanos, A. C. (México) Unidad de Protección a Defensoras y Defensores de Derechos Humanos (Guatemala) Medio Ambiente y Sociedad A.C. (México) Frente Ciudadano en Defensa del Agua y la Vida en B.C.S. (México) COMCAUSA AC (México) Acción Ecológica (Chile) Coordinadora Nacional de Derechos Humanos (Perú) Comisión de Justicia Social de la Diócesis de Chimbote (Perú) Instituto Peruano de Educación en Derechos Humanos y la Paz (Perú) Ambiente y Sociedad (Colombia) Asociación Amigos de los Parques Nacionales de Argentina (Argentina) Centro de Estudios Mineros Colombia Punto Medio (Colombia) Instituto Runa de Desarrollo y Estudios sobre Género (Perú) Centro de Estudios Jurídicos e Investigación Social (Bolivia) Fundación Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (Argentina) Liga de Defensa del Medio Ambiente (Bolivia) Asociación Ecologista Río Mocoretá (Argentina) Asociación Eco Raíces (Argentina) Fundación Myrna Mack (Guatemala) Paz y Esperanza (Perú) Foro del Buen Ayre (Argentina) Asociación Ambientalista Ecolapaz (Argentina) Asociación Ambientalista del Sur (Argentina) Asociación Ambientalista Mayu Sumaj (Argentina) Asociación Argentina de Abogados Ambientalistas (Argentina) Asociación Civil de Ecología Social (Argentina) Asociación Civil Red Ambiental (Argentina) Asociación Civil Tierra XXI (Argentina) Asociación de Protección al Ambiente Serrano - Calamuchita (Argentina) Asociación Ecologista PIUKE (Argentina) Asociación Lihue (Argentina) Asociación Vecinal Moronense (Argentina) Bios Argentina (Argentina) Centro Ambiental Argentino – Cambiar (Argentina) Centro Andino de Desarrollo e Investigación Ambiental (Argentina) Centro Argentino de Meteorólogos (Argentina) Centro de Protección a la Naturaleza (Argentina) Comisión Interdisciplinaria de Medio Ambiente (Argentina) Comisión Ecológica Ituzaingó (Argentina) Continental Nea (Argentina) Federación Amigos de la Tierra Argentina (Argentina) Foro de los Ríos (Argentina) Fundación Ambiente Ecológico (Argentina) Fundación Arandu (Argentina) Fundación Argentina de Energías Alternativas y Renovables (Argentina) Fundación Argentina de Etoecología (Argentina) Fundación Cullunche para la Conservación del Ambiente, la Flora y la Fauna (Argentina) Fundación Inti Cuyum (Argentina) Fundación Norte Ecológico (Argentina) Fundación Orden Ecológica (Argentina) Fundación Pacha Mama para el Medio Ambiente y Desarrollo (Argentina) Fundación para el Desarrollo Sustentable de Eco Regiones (Argentina) Fundación Pasos (Argentina) Fundación Península Raulí (Argentina) Fundación Proyectos Ambientales (Argentina) Fundación Red Informática Ecologista (Argentina) Grupo Ambiental para el Desarrollo (Argentina) Grupo Ecológico Bolívar (Argentina) Greenpeace Argentina (Argentina) Iniciativa Radial (Argentina) Instituto de Estudios e Investigaciones sobre Medio Ambiente (Argentina) Fundación Jorge Esteban Roulet (Argentina) Organización Argentina de Investigaciones Espeleológicas – Karst (Argentina) Movimiento Transfronterizo de ONG Ambientalistas de la Triple Frontera (Argentina, Brasil, Uruguay) Multimedios Ambiente Ecológico (Argentina) Observatorio de Políticas Sociales y Ambientales (Argentina) Red Eco-ambiental de Jujuy (Argentina) Taller ecologista Rótary Internacional (Argentina) Equipo de Reflexión, Investigación y Comunicación de la Compañía de Jesús (Honduras) Ágora Espacio Civil (Paraguay) Plataforma Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, Democracia y Desarrollo (Regional) Centro de Documentación en Derechos Humanos “Segundo Montes Mozo S.J.” (Ecuador) Fundación Étnica Integral (República Dominicana) Corporación para el Desarrollo de Aysén (Chile) Asociación pro Derechos Humanos (Perú) Alianza Mexicana contra el Fracking (México) Blue Planet Project (Internacional) Fundación Instituto Boliviano de la Montaña (Bolivia) Red MUQUI (Perú) Red Regional Agua, Desarrollo y Democracia (Perú) Asociación Interamericana para la Defensa del Ambiente (Regional) Organización Familia Pasta de Conchos (México) Centro de Estudios y Apoyo al Desarrollo Local (Bolivia) GRUFIDES (Perú) Derechos Humanos y Medio Ambiente (Perú) Hnas. de la Misericordia de las Américas, comunidad de Argentina (Argentina) CADEP “José María Arguedas” (Perú) Red Latinoamericana Iglesias y Minería (Regional) Asociación Fe y Derechos Humanos (Perú) Food & Water Watch (EE.UU.) Centro de Derechos Humanos de las Mujeres (México) Grupo de Mujeres de San Cristobal Las Casas (México) Defensa de Niñas y Niños - Internacional, Costa Rica (Costa Rica) Movimiento Franciscano ̈Justicia y Paz ̈ Bolivia (Bolivia) Franciscans International – Bolivia (Bolivia) Instituto NATURA (Perú) CooperAcción (Perú) Consejo Latinoamericano de Iglesias CLAI. Programa Fe, Economía, Ecología y Sociedad (Regional) Centro de Documentación e Información Bolivia (Bolivia) Comisión Colombiana de Juristas (Colombia) Red Uniendo Manos Perú (Perú) Adhesiones personales Albert Hans Argote Adrian, Cochabamba, Bolivia Miguel Vargas Delgado, Santa Cruz, Bolivia Ariel Pérez Castellón, Cochabamba, Bolivia Severo Villarroel Zenzano, Oruro, Bolivia Donald K. Anton, Australia [1] Cfr. http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2010/04/22/mundo/024n1mun [2] Cfr. Decreto Supremo 1597, Artículo 19, inciso g. [3] Cfr. Human Rights Council, Final observations on the third periodic report of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, October 14 to November 1, 2013, paragraph 24 http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CCPR/Shared%20Documents/BOL/CCPR_C_BOL_CO_3_15635_S.doc [4] Cfr. http://www.noticiasfides.com/g/politica/la-onu-alerta-que-ley-sobre-ong-vulnera-el-derecho-a-la-libertad-de-asociacion-en-bolivia-34609/ [5] Cfr. http://www.cambio.bo/?q=oeneg%C3%A9s-que-perjudiquen-al-estado-se-ir%C3%A1n-del-pa%C3%ADs
Read more
International Regulatory Best Practices for Coral Reef Protection
This Best Practices Guide provides examples of effective regulatory tools for protecting coral reefs. These tools can be adapted to the circumstances of various jurisdictions where reefs are at risk. It is not an exhaustive list of best practices, but rather a compilation of approaches that countries around the world have implemented to regulate human activities that harm coral reefs. This Guide presents basic legal and regulatory tools and practices that can be modified, improved, strengthened, and applied according to the unique circumstances and objectives of each country seeking to implement stronger protections for its coral reef resources. Download the guide Download the summary report
Read more
Towards Ecosystem Management of the Peruvian Anchoveta Fishery (in Spanish)
The report, created with the financial support of the Pew Charitable Trusts, contains recommendations for the legal and institutional reforms needed to manage the fishery while caring for the needs of the ecosystem as a whole. The recommendations are designed to ensure that the fishery is managed to provide enough anchoveta for both the commercial fishing industry and the rest of the marine life that depends on it. Download the report (IN SPANISH)
Read more
Guidelines for the Environmental Impact Assessment of Mining Projects
For many communities, water is a scare and therefore valuable resource. Access to it is complicated if rivers, lakes, or other sources are polluted or overused. Water quality often suffers when the impacts of mining projects are not adequately evaluated before the mines are authorized. AIDA’s legal expertise is helping to prevent or minimize mining’s damage on the environment and on the people who depend upon it. In collaboration with scientists and experienced technicians, we’ve prepared a guide detailing the comprehensive analysis that must be completed for any Environmental Impact Assessment of a proposed mining project. The guide will be as useful to authorities as to communities and civil society organizations. This guide recommends that, in all its sections, the Environmental Impact Assessment of a mining project contain detailed information that addresses everything from general aspects of the project to its social and environmental impacts, as well as measures to prevent or mitigate them. Read and download the report (in spanish)
Read more
The Protection of Coral Reefs in Mexico (in Spanish)
This report outlines the importance of coral reefs in the world—in Mexico in particular—and explores case studies, outlines relevant international treaties and obligations, and looks to best practices from nations around the region for inspiration. Download the report (in Spanish)
Read more
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
57 CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS AND COALITIONS IN LATIN AMERICA INSIST THAT LARGE DAMS ARE NOT CLEAN ENERGY SOURCES AND WE ASK GOVERNMENTS, INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS TO IMPLEMENT REAL SOLUTIONS TO CLIMATE CHANGE It is time to learn from the past and to implement alternatives appropriate to our time According to the World Commission on Dams, by the year 2000, fifty thousand dams had already been built, disrupting more than 60% of Earth’s rivers.[1] In Latin America alone, 973 dams of all sizes are operating, and roughly 1,600 more are being built or planned—254 in the Amazon Basin.[2] Scientific evidence reveals that large dams: emit greenhouse gases, including methane, especially in tropical regions,[3] aggravating climate change, and making adaptation more difficult; cost almost twice their initial budget, causing economic difficulties in the communities and countries where they are implemented;[4] take a long time to become operational, making them an inefficient solution to the urgent energy crisis that they are intended to tackle;[5] may cause great and irreparable environmental damage; and may cause human rights violations and impoverishment of communities if not implemented with appropriate safeguards. Nevertheless, they continue to be promoted as clean energy sources to meet increasing energy demand.[6] Why are dams not clean energy sources and why are alternatives needed? 1. Because they contribute to climate change and make adaptation more difficult Construction and operation of large dams in tropical regions causes emission of CO2 and methane from the large amounts of flooded and retained organic matter in reservoirs. The greenhouse gas effect of methane is between 20 to 40 times more powerful than that of CO2.[7] Dams also destroy large areas of surrounding lands needed to build them. Dams are not flexible enough to endure climate change. On the contrary, they are inefficient in droughts and unsafe in floods, which aggravates the risk of disasters. Moreover, they threaten communities’ entire hydrologic system, destroying key ecosystems and fisheries, thus compromising communities’ ability to adapt to climate change. 2. Because of the cost overruns, delays and economic damage that they entail Data show that the final cost of the majority of dams that have been built is 96% greater than their initial budgets. This expense has been linked to the increase of public debt and to economic crisis in several countries.[8] 3. Because they take a long time to become operational, making them an inefficient solution to the urgent energy crisis that they are intended to tackle Construction of large dams takes approximately 8.6 years, plus time to begin operating,[9] and they operate on average only 50 years.[10] Experts have documented that eight out of every ten dams exceed their initial construction-time estimates by more than 44%.[11] Dams are not an efficient solution to growing and urgent energy demand. 4. Because they may cause great and irreparable environmental damage Large dams cause environmental damages to rivers, hydrologic basins and surrounding ecosystems, including: worsening water quality in rivers; degradation of aquatic ecosystems and disappearance of many riparian ecosystems; and serious harms to biodiversity, including the extinction of species.[12] 5. Because environmental damage may violate human rights and impoverish communities The human rights of the people affected by large dams have been systematically unrecognized. Large dams have caused forced displacement;[13] health problems; loss of food sources and traditional ways of life; community impoverishment;[14] and criminalization of social protest. Additionally, permitting processes are generally flawed; permits are issued without comprehensive environmental or social impact assessments, and without adequate public participation and consultation. TODAY there are cleaner, more efficient, less costly and faster alternatives to respond to energy demand. Therefore we DEMAND that Governments, international organizations and financial institutions immediately: Stop considering large dams as clean energy sources, given the proved negative impacts mentioned above. These impacts must be considered comprehensively. Incorporate in the planning stage for new dams: scientific evidence of greenhouse gas emissions, including methane produced by reservoirs; the instability that climate change causes in the hydrologic regime; lessons learned regarding costs and real implementation time of large dams; comprehensive evaluation of environmental and social impacts that will be caused; an integrated, realistic energy strategy through a Comprehensive Plan for Electric Sector Energy Resources; Make decisions that account for impacts on the environment, human rights and climate change. Implement real energy solutions that prove to be effective, with benefits that outweigh the harms they cause. Adopt inclusive and transparent decision-making processes, taking into account the whole spectrum of energy alternatives. Abogadas y Abogados para la Justicia y los Derechos Humanos, A.C., México Alianza de Comunidades y Usuarios en Defensa del Río Biobos-Nautla, México Alianza para la Conservación y el Desarrollo (ACD), Panamá Amazon Watch, Estados Unidos Amazónicos por la Amazonía (AMPA), Perú Amigos del Río San Rodrigo, México Asamblea Veracruzana de Iniciativas y Defensa Ambiental (LAVIDA), México Asociación Ambiente y Sociedad, Colombia Asociación Amigos de los Parques Nacionales (AAPN), Argentina Asociación Ceiba, Guatemala Asociación de Ecología Social (AESO), Costa Rica Asociación Interamericana para la Defensa del Ambiente (AIDA), Regional Asociación Palmareña para la Recuperación del Ambiente (APRA), Costa Rica Asociación Peruana para la Conservación de la Naturaleza, Perú Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos (APRODEH), Perú Asociación Proyectos Alternativos para Desarrollo Social (PROAL), Costa Rica Bloque Verde, Costa Rica Centro de Desarrollo Étnico (CEDET), Perú Centro de Documentación en Derechos Humanos “Segundo Montes Mozo S.J.” (CSMM), Ecuador Centro de Estudios para la Justicia Social "Tierra Digna", Colombia Centro de Promoción y Defensa de Derechos Humanos Arequipa (CEPRODEH), Perú Centro Humboldt, Nicaragua Centro Mexicano de Derecho Ambiental, A.C. (CEMDA), México Centro para la Sostenibilidad Ambiental de la Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia (CSA-UPCH), Perú Colectivo Defensa Verde Naturaleza para Siempre, México Comisión de Derechos Humanos de Ica, Perú Comisión Ecuménica de Derechos Humanos (CEDHU), Ecuador Comité por los Derechos en América Latina (CEDHAL), Canadá Consejo de Ejidos y Comunidades Opositores a la Presa La Parota (CECOP), México Coordinadora de Afectados por Embalses y Trasvases (COAGRET), España Coordinadora Nacional de Derechos Humanos, Perú Derechos Humanos y Medio Ambiente, Perú Ecologia E Ação (ECOA), Brasil Federación Ecologista de Costa Rica (FECON), Costa Rica Finca Amalur, Costa Rica Fiscalía del Medio Ambiente (FIMA), Chile Foro Ciudadano de Participación por la Justicia y los Derechos Humanos (FORO), Argentina Fórum Solidaridad Perú, Perú Fundación Centro de Derechos Humanos y Ambiente (CEDHA), Argentina Fundación Ecuménica para el Desarrollo y la Paz (FEDEPAZ), Perú Fundación GaiaPacha, Bolivia Fundación POPOL NA, Nicaragua Fundar, México Grupo Ecologista Cuña Pirú, Argentina Instituto Madeira Vivo (IMV), Brasil International Rivers, Estados Unidos JASS, Asociadas por lo Justo, México Justicia para la Naturaleza, Costa Rica María Esperanza Alonso, especialista de Derecho Ambiental, Argentina Movimiento Ciudadano frente al Cambio Climático (MOCICC), Perú Oilwatch Mesoamérica, Costa Rica Plataforma Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, Democracia y Desarrollo (PIDHDD Regional), Ecuador Programa Chile Sustentable, Chile Pueblos Unidos de la Cuenca Antigua por los Ríos Libres, México Red Jurídica Amazónica (RAMA), Bolivia Sociedad Peruana de Derecho Ambiental (SPDA), Perú Unión Norte por la Vida, Costa Rica For more information: AIDA on dams: http://www.aida-americas.org/es/project/grandesrepresas International Rivers: http://www.internationalrivers.org/ Report: Grandes Represas en América: ¿Peor el Remedio que la Enfermedad? Blog: Desmantelando el mito de las represas, Grandes represas elefantes blancos, Hydropower Will Not Solve All Africa's Problems [1] World Commission on Dams Report. http://www.internationalrivers.org/files/attached-files/world_commission_on_dams_final_report.pdf [2] State of the World’s Rivers. http://www.internationalrivers.org/worldsrivers/ [3]2013 IPCC Supplement to the 2006 Guidelines for National GHG Inventories: Wetlands http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/wetlands/ [4]Ansar, Atif and Flyvbjerg, Bent and Budzier, Alexander and Lunn, Daniel, Should We Build More Large Dams? The Actual Costs of Hydropower Megaproject Development (March 10, 2014). Energy Policy, March 2014, pp.1-14. [5] Ibid [6] Directions for the World Bank Group’s Energy Sector. http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/document/SDN/energy-2013-0281-2.pdf [7] Climate and Clear Air Coalition. Short-Lived Climate Pollutants. (2011). http://www.unep.org/ccac/ShortLivedClimatePollutants/tabid/101650/Default.aspx. [8] Ansar, A et al. Furthermore, the Brazilian Federal Court of Accountability carried out a study of the energy projects developed between 2005 and 2012, and it concluded that almost 80% of dams will not comply with their schedule. http://oglobo.globo.com/economia/tcu-constata-atrasos-nas-obras-de-energia-leiloadas-pelo-governo-de-2005-2012-13822128 (Spanish) [9] Ansar, A., et al. [10] Friends of the Earth, et al. Dam Removal Success Stories. (1999). http://www.michigandnr.com/publications/pdfs/fishing/dams/SuccessStoriesReport.pdf http://www.teachengineering.org/view_lesson.php?url=collection/cub_/lessons/cub_dams/cub_dams_lesson08.xml [11] Ansar, A., et al. [12] AIDA. Grandes Represas en América: ¿Peor el remedio que la enfermedad? http://www.aida-americas.org/sites/default/files/InformeAIDA_GrandesRepreseas_BajaRes_1.pdf (Spanish) [13] According to the World Commission on Dams, between 40 and 80 million people have been displaced due to big dams—approximately one out of every 100 people alive today. [14] Thayer Scudder, California Institute of Technology, promoted construction of dams for 58 years, believing that they were an option for the relief of poverty. He publicly changed his mind when he was 84 years old, declaring that they are not worth their cost and that many of the dams currently under construction will have disastrous consequences. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/24/opinion/sunday/large-dams-just-arent-worth-the-cost.html?emc=eta1&_r=3
Read more
Letter presenting Latin American civil society organizations' concerns on the dilution of the World Bank's safeguards policies
Latin American civil society organizations "strongly recommend that CODE members send the first draft back to Management. Without structural changes to the Safeguard Policy proposal, we question if the second phase of consultations and the review process will be meaningful". According to them, dilution of the current Bank Safeguards Policy is evident throughout the draft. Basic World Bank requirements to assess and manage environmental risks and impacts before approval are now relaxed by providing the unbounded deferral of appraisal of significant environmental and social risks or impacts to implementation. A second major concern is that the draft proposed Social and Environmental Policy and ESSs significantly shift responsibility for safeguards implementation to borrowers, but provides less clarity than current exists on when/how the use of borrower systems would be preferable and acceptable. It remains unclear how the proposed draft will help the Bank and Borrowers make decisions to prepare or use borrower systems to effectively implement safeguards in countries where major dilutions of national social and environmental frameworks are being proposed or recently approved. "The proposed draft misses opportunities to meet the highest international standards. The draft provides no binding language regarding international human rights standards and allows governments to "opt out" of compliance to the Indigenous Peoples Policy to protect Indigenous Peoples rights, which unequivocally undermines the international consensus regarding the specific and fundamental rights of indigenous peoples over their lands, resources and the course of their own development", the organizations argue.
Read more
Joint letter: Mexico – Detention of environmental and human rights defender Mr. Marco Antonio Suástegui Muñoz
The 57 organizations and persons signatory to the letter, which work for the protection of human rights and the environment, express their deep concern at the detention of Mr. Marco Antonio Suástegui, leader of the Consejo de Ejidos y Comunidades Opositores a la Presa La Parota – CECOP (Council of Communal Lands and Communities Opposing the La Parota Dam), on 17 June by members of the Ministerial Police of the Attorney General of Justice of Guerrero State. We call upon the Mexican State to take effective and urgent measures to guarantee the human rights of Mr. Suástegui and the important work that the human rights defender performs in defence of the Papagayo River. In particular, we consider it fundamental that the State: Take measures to ensure that the competent authorities guarantee the right to a defence and due process of Mr. Marco Antonio Suástegui, and reverse any action taken in the detention procedure and past transfers that tainted by illegalities, Take measures to guarantee his physical and psychological integrity, and Take all necessary measures to secure the work for the defence of human rights and the environment undertaken by Marco Antonio Suástegui, and take an active role in avoiding any act that hinders the actions taken to defend the Papagayo River.
Read more
New Hope for Environmental Justice in IFI Projects
In its budget bill for 2014, the US Congress has taken bold steps to promote environmental justice within international financial institutions. Among other measures, the bill instructs the US representatives in these institutions to oppose large dams and logging projects that affect primary tropical forests, and to seek justice for the victims of human rights violations in IFI projects such as the Chixoy Dam in Guatemala. With input from other groups, International Rivers and AIDA published a factsheet which summarizes the provisions of the budget bill and the opportunities it creates for NGOs. The factsheet is addressed at partner groups monitoring and campaigning against IFI projects.
Read more
The link between international environmental law, human rights and large dams
The article is an update and reissue of two chapters of the report Large Dams in the Americas: Is the Cure Worse than the Disease, written by Jacob Kopas and Astrid Puentes Riaño. The article identifies “the main obligations, standards, decisions and international law applicable to large hydropower plants that our governments should use in the planning, implementation, operation and closure of these projects." The article is divided into two parts. Chapter I offers an overview of the main standards, the legal framework of international human rights and environmental law as well as the decisions and international jurisprudence applicable to the cases of large dams. In Chapter II, this framework is applied to the cases of human rights abuses caused by the degradation of the environment through the development of a large dam.
Read more