Search

An evaluation of the OAS General Assembly and its relationship to the environment

By Astrid Puentes Riaño, co-executive director, AIDA, @astridpuentes   The first week of June every year, the General Assembly of the Organization of American States (OAS) – made up of the foreign affairs ministers of its 34 member states – meets to discuss and address the hemisphere’s priority issues. For 2013, the central theme was: “For a comprehensive policy against the world drug problem in the Americas.” The city of Antigua, Guatemala hosted the June 4-6 event. In addition to the central theme, relevant administrative issues were addressed such as the election of commissioners to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) and the approval of two conventions against discrimination and in favor of tolerance. This year, as in 2012, I had the honor of attending the assembly as a civil society observer. My objectives this year were: 1) to monitor the process of “strengthening” the Inter-American System of Human Rights (IASHR) which ended at the extraordinary assembly last March, and 2) to participate in the process of including an environmental focus in the debate on drug policy by contributing AIDA’s experience in monitoring the programs to eradicate coca and opium poppies in Colombia (1999-2007). These are my conclusions on the event from four different angles: What turned out well J The Assembly Declaration on the need to evaluate the so far failed drug policy: The states recognized the policy’s negative impacts on both the environment and human rights as well as the importance of taking them into consideration in future solution initiatives. The "Inter-American Convention against Racism, Racial Discrimination, and Related Forms of Intolerance" and "Inter-American Convention against All Forms of Discrimination and Intolerance" were adopted and opened for signature.  We hope both conventions are ratified, upheld and implemented by all of the states in order to eradicate actions that threaten the dignity and life of any person. The culmination of the process of “strengthening” the IASHR that started in 2011: As regards this issue, I will limit my comments to recalling that far from strengthening the system, the proposals from certain states threatened to weaken it (please see my previous post). In March, important reforms to the IACHR were agreed on and will be applied beginning in August. Although those changes were not in force, certain states sought additional ones. Given that a state of constant reforms is destined for failure, it was positive that for the moment the states did not agree to make new revisions to the IACHR or to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Another positive element was the frank and open dialogue (though at times difficult) held by the states, IACHR, the Inter-American Court, civil society and other system users. There were many issues that remained outstanding, but the important thing is to strengthen dialogue in which the users of the IASHR and interested parties can participate effectively, and in which the real protection of human rights is the only guide. With regard to the election of the IACHR commissioners, the six candidates presented their proposals on May 1 in a forum held by the Permanent Council. Despite the inappropriateness of the chosen date – the hemisphere (excepting the northern part) was celebrating International Workers’ Day (also known as May Day), we listened to the candidates (all men this time) and learned about their perspectives regarding the IACHR. This should be a systematic practice in all OAS elections. What I did not like  The lack of clarity and interruptions in spaces assigned to civil society: I recognize that progress has been made toward the greater and more significant participation of this sector in the OAS even though the mechanisms are still far from being perfect. Two examples in the assembly in Antigua, which we hope do not recur in the future, illustrate this: 1. During the civil society dialogue with Mr. José Miguel Insulza, secretary-general of the OAS, one state representative took the floor. Regardless of the subject of this intervention, this goes against the definition of the space, which is open only to the OAS secretary and civil society delegates. This is a point that requires immediate improvement. 2. In the dialogue between civil society and the foreign secretaries, the situation became complex. It is customary that, due to the short amount of time available for interventions (a total of 20 minutes this time), the organizations decide beforehand the issues and speakers. On this occasion, a group of organizations insisted on taking the floor even though their issue had not been chosen. Despite this, one additional person was given the floor without previous coordination or agreement. Although this was an attempt to air the perspectives of a diverse group, as is civil society, it opened the possibility of delegitimizing the efforts of hundreds of organizations to organize ourselves, if you’ll pardon the repetition. In addition, this incident brings with it the risk that organizations or individuals whose issues have not been selected by the rest but who are close to the foreign ministries may participate more than others.  What was left pending… Obtaining greater participation from other sectors of civil society such as indigenous peoples, campesinos and Afro-Descendants. Nevertheless, in contrast to the past, this time there was a greater presence of the latter group, which represents a positive step. Providing continuity to the urgency of getting the states to renew and demonstrate their will to comply with IASHR decisions. This issue, I feel, is the white elephant in the room. Although that is a part of the recommendations of the Working Group that the states themselves developed in order to “strengthen” the System, none of them have mentioned the matter again and it is not included in the resolution that put an end to the process even though it is fundamental for truly strengthening the System. This assembly unfortunately demonstrated yet again the lack of transparency in the selection of the commissioners. Despite the redeemable elements of the forum mentioned above, each country’s participatory and transparent selection processes were absent. During the assembly, the traditional mechanism was once again applied in which each state nominates and campaigns for its own candidate. This lends itself to the diplomatic negotiation of votes that in the end are secret, thereby reducing the accountability to which we all have a right to with regard to those who govern us. The best part ☼ Without a doubt, the venue: Antigua. The people are incredibly friendly. It is a very pretty city that with great reason was declared a World Heritage Site by UNESCO. It is full of gorgeous little corners, colonial architecture and houses with balconies and gardens. Imposing mountains surround it – among them, Volcán de Agua [Water Volcano], at only 3½ kilometers from the city. I was able to enjoy a perfect and inspirational view on the mornings when I ran very early to clear my mind and stay abreast of the important, though a bit slow for my taste, discussions. The opportunity to share closely with respected individuals such as María José, my colleague at AIDA, and colleagues from organizations from throughout the region with whom it was a pleasure to meet again. The foregoing is my view of the recent OAS General Assembly. I would enjoy hearing your comments in agreement or disagreement with what I have said.

World Bank investment in Eco Oro Minerals in Colombia to be audited

Decision supports complainants’ arguments that the International Financial Corporation did not adequately evaluate the environmental and social impacts of company’s project in Colombia.

UN Representative on Indigenous Peoples asked to investigate human rights violations caused by Panama’s Barro Blanco dam

A total of 12 civil society organizations urged the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, James Anaya, to conduct a formal investigation into the human rights impacts of the Barro Blanco dam located on the Tabasará River in Panama.

Collective Statement to the Colombian government on the collapse of Law 1382

The organizations and persons behind the Statement express our concerns to the Colombian government about the implications of the collapse of the Mining Code in effect since May 11, 2012 (Law 1382, 2010) and the consequent return to the previous Mining Code (Law 685 2001), particularly as concerns the serious consequences to the country’s environment (detailed in the document).   To prevent these impacts, we urge you to take the following steps: Present in the shortest time possible a draft of the Mining Code that overcomes the deficiencies of mining regulations and brings the legislation into line with the duties of biodiversity and water protection, while previously guaranteeing that ethnic groups have the right to free, prior and informed consultation. Maintain the moratorium on mining permits until a new Mining Code is submitted and approved. Immediately decree a moratorium on environmental licenses in order to avoid the elimination of environmental protection clauses. Statement available in Spanish only. 

Strengthening Protections Through the UN Human Rights System

Report on the situation in La Oroya (Peru): When investor protection threatens human rights

The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) presented a balance of the controversial case of industrial pollution.

AIDA and CEMDA joint report on the UPR of Mexico

In accordance with the guidelines of the Human Rights Council, the Mexican Environmental Law Center (CEMDA) and the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) present comments on the extent of Mexico’s compliance with the recommendations the country accepted as part of the 2009 Universal Periodic Review (UPR). We also present comments on other human rights violations related to environmental issues, which we believe should be taken into consideration during the next Universal Periodic Review set to take place later this year.  

Groups seek investigation into Mexico’s approval of four “mega resorts”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                                                April 11, 2013   Media contacts: Mexico Sandra Moguel, [email protected], +52 (164) 621-02353 USA Sarah Burt, [email protected], +1 (415) 217-2055 Serena Ingre, [email protected], +1 (415) 875-6155   Groups seek investigation into Mexico’s approval of four “mega resorts” Massive tourism developments threaten fragile ecosystems and endangered species   San Francisco, USA/La Paz, Mexico. In a petition submitted to the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, eleven conservation groups charged the Mexican government with failing to enforce its own environmental laws in authorizing the construction of four “mega resorts” in the Gulf of California. The Commission is an international body established under the North American Free Trade Agreement to promote cooperation among Canada, Mexico and the U.S. on environmental issues of continental concern.    “The Mexican authorities’ approval of massive tourism projects in violation of environmental laws is unacceptable and demonstrates little regard for threatened species, the environment and local communities”, said Sandra Moguel of the Inter-American Association for Environmental Defense, and one of the signers of the petition. “We urge the new Administration and Minister Guerra Abud to ensure that the approval process of development projects is transparent and not arbitrary”.   The approval of projects such as Cabo Cortés, Paraíso del Mar, Entre Mares, and Playa Espíritu threatens the unique coral reefs and mangrove ecosystems of the region, and endangered species such as humpback and gray whales, whale sharks, manta rays, sea turtles, sea lions, jaguars, crocodiles and many species of migratory birds.   The petition highlights the four projects as examples of the Mexican Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources’ repeated failure to enforce environmental laws when approving large-scale tourist development projects in the Gulf of California. In particular, the government ignores laws requiring effective environmental impact assessment, protection of endangered species, and conservation of coastal ecosystems. The petitioners are requesting that the Commission investigate and develop a factual record to examine Mexico’s lack of enforcement of its environmental laws when authorizing these developments. Such a finding would pressure Mexico to comply with its own environmental safeguards.     “These natural treasures are of importance to Mexican communities that depend on them as cultural, economic and recreational resources”, says Judith Castro with the Friends for the Conservation of Cabo Pulmo. “Mexico cannot continue to approve mega projects that displace residents, bulldoze wildlife habitat, and pollute the waters of this vital ecosystem”.   Known as the “World’s Aquarium”, the Gulf of California is considered one of the most diverse marine regions on the planet, and is home to thousands of species. Specifically, these mega projects, two of which are already under construction, threatened the following critical areas in the region:  Cabo Pulmo National Park: One of the healthiest coral reef systems in the world, a UNESCO World Heritage Site and a Ramsar Wetland of International Importance, Cabo Pulmo is threatened by massive developments like Cabo Cortés. The Cabo Cortés proposal included the equivalent of nearly 30,000 guest rooms in its hotels, condominiums and villas, two 27-hole golf courses, a 490 berth marina, and a system of canals and artificial lakes. Additionally, because the region has a desert climate without sufficient water to accommodate such amenities and the expected population growth, the proposal included a desalination plant that could have discharged hypersaline brine into the reef. While the project was ultimately rejected in June 2012, Cabo Pulmo is threatened by similar developments still being considered. The Marismas Nacionales Wetlands: Playa Espíritu, a project already under construction that includes three golf courses, two marinas, a wastewater plant, and additional infrastructure spread across more than 35,000 acres, threatens the Marismas Nacionales, the most extensive and well-preserved mangrove forest habitat on the western coast of Mexico, and home to more than 280 species of migratory and resident bird species. The Bay of La Paz: One of the most productive water bodies in the Gulf of California and an important area for nesting birds, the Bay of La Paz is jeopardized by two adjacent projects, Paraíso del Mar, currently under construction, and Entre Mares, proposed for construction on a sandbar extending into the bay. Combined, these two projects will develop nearly ten thousand hotel rooms, plus 4,000 homes, two golf courses and a large marina and would bring an additional population of more than 10,000 people in high season.   Earthjustice and the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) are filing the petition on behalf of the Ecological Network for Escuinapa Development (REDES), Friends for the Conservation of Cabo Pulmo (ACCP), WiLDCOAST, SUMAR, Los Cabos Coastkeepers, Alliance for the Sustainability of the Mexican Coastal Northwest (ALCOSTA), the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Greenpeace México and AIDA. The petitioners are calling on Mexico to protect the marine and coastal ecosystems of the Gulf of California, particularly coral reefs like the ones in Cabo Pulmo.   “By approving these projects, Mexico is failing its obligations to protect wetlands, coral reefs and species of environmental and international importance”, said Carolina Herrera, Latin America Advocate with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “What this region in the Gulf of California needs is low-impact sustainable development where the well-being of local communities and the environment is the first priority”. A map of the projects, photos, videos, and background information are available at: http://earthjustice.org/cortes    Read the petition here: http://earthjustice.org/documents/legal-document/pdf/petition-to-commission-english