Search

Amidst criticism, BNDES approves unprecedented loan for controversial Belo Monte dam in Brazilian Amazon

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE November 29, 2012   Media Contacts: Astrid Puentes, AIDA, [email protected], +52 1-55 2301-6639 Brent Millikan, International Rivers, [email protected] +55 61 8153-7009 Maíra Irigaray, Amazon Watch, [email protected] +1 415 622-8606     Amidst criticism, BNDES approves unprecedented loan for controversial Belo Monte dam in Brazilian Amazon  Financing ignores violations of human rights and environmental safeguards, tarnishing bank’s reputation, critics state   Brasilia—On Monday, November 26, the Brazilian National Development Bank(BNDES) announced approval of an unprecedented loan of BRL 22.5 billion (approximately US$10.8 billion) for construction of the controversial Belo Monte dam project on the Xingu river, a major tributary of the Amazon. It is the largest loan in the bank’s 60-year history. BNDES is slated to be responsible for BRL 13.5 billion of direct finance, while Caixa Econômica Federal (CEF), a public bank, will pass through BRL 7 billion and private investment bank BTG Pactual will administer another BRL 2 billion.   Responding to the BNDES announcement, nine Brazilian civil society organizations filed a petition yesterday with the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office (Ministério Público Federal) calling for an investigation of apparent violations of legally-binding requirements related to the project’s social and environmental impacts, risks and economic viability. The petition calls on prosecutors to take urgent measures to prevent BNDES from disbursing loan proceeds to the project developer (Norte Energia, S.A.) prior to the completion of a full investigation.   The controversial project has been paralyzed on at least six occasions by affected indigenous communities and fishermen, who have protested over the failures of Norte Energía and government agencies to comply with the project's mandated environmental and social provisions. Eight thousand of the project's own workers also have shut down the dam, recently setting fire to construction camps and machinery and blocking roads, in protest against violations of labor legislation.  “As long as Norte Energia and the Brazilian government, including BNDES, continue to ignore demands by affected peoples, there will be resistance and increased conflict. By approving the massive loan with so much conflict on the ground shows the lack of commitment by BNDES to meet rights and environmental safeguard commitments. It should reconsider the loan approval to avoid any further conflict,” said Maira Irigaray, International Finance Advocate at Amazon Watch.   Belo Monte was suspended twice in 2012 by federal judges for the lack of prior consultations with affected indigenous communities, as required by the Brazilian Constitution and international human rights agreements. The International Labor Organization and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) have declared that the project places at risk the rights of affected indigenous communities.  Expert and independent analysis has found that Belo Monte is economically, socially and environmentally unviable.   Norte Energía and federal government agencies are facing 15 civil proceedings in the Brazilian courts lodged by the Public Ministry, the Public Defender’s Office and civil society institutions, as well as international suits that question the large number of illegalities and irregularities committed since the start of the project. Despite massive legal, financial and reputational risks surrounding Belo Monte, BNDES has decided to finance the project anyway, apparently under intense pressure from the administration of President Dilma Rousseff. By approving the loan, BNDES makes itself the main financier of a project notorious for violations of environmental legislation and human rights, including the culture integrity of indigenous and river communities. Among its environmental impacts, Belo Monte is expected to cause large emissions of greenhouse gases, including methane, a gas that is 25 times stronger than carbon dioxide.   “The violations of human rights caused by the construction of the Belo Monte dam have been denounced before international organizations for which the State of Brazil and now also BNDES could be responsible,” said Astrid Puentes, Executive Co-Director of the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), an organization that offers legal support to the affected communities. In 2011, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights – IACHR, part of the Organization of American States (OAS), called for precautionary measures to protect the life, personal and cultural integrity of the contacted and uncontacted indigenous communities of the Xingu River affected by the construction of the Belo Monte dam. The Brazilian government chose to ignore the Commission’s recommendations.   “No serious social and environmental safeguards were implemented by BNDES prior to the approval of this loan for Belo Monte using the money of Brazilian taxpayers” argued Antonia Melo, coordinator of the Movimento Xingu Vivo para Sempre. “BNDES claims that part of the funds will be used in the mitigation of the impacts of Belo Monte, but this is just talk. No one guarantees that this money is going to minimize the suffering of those affected. To date, virtually none of the promises made to indigenous, river people and fishermen have been met. BNDES already has transferred BRL 2.9 billion to Norte Energia without any serious risk analysis, and you can see the disastrous situation of the people in the region, the deforestation and the lack of infrastructure in Altamira.”   The unprecedented BNDES loan for Belo Monte, slated to be the world’s third largest dam project, is the largest in the bank’s 60-year history. Critics charge that the project is economically unviable, due to factors such as burgeoning construction costs that increased over six fold from BRL 4.5 billion reais in 2005 to current estimated of BRL 28.9 billion. The project is expected to produce only 39% of its installed capacity of 11,233 MW capacity.  According to Brent Millikan, Amazon Program Director at International Rivers, “If the true social and environmental costs, along with the financial, legal and reputational risks of Belo Monte were seriously taken into consideration, BNDES would never get near the project.”   Further information:   www.aida-americas.org/es/project/belomonte www.internationalrivers.org/campaigns/belo-monte-dam www.amazonwatch.org/work/let-the-river-run   www.xinguvivo.org.br  

Belo Monte Dam Suspended by Brazilian Appeals Court

  FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Media Contacts: Brent Millikan, International Rivers [email protected], +55 61 8153-7009 Andrew Miller, Amazon Watch [email protected], +1 202 423 4828 Joelson Calvacante, Inter-American Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) [email protected], +52 55 5212-0141   Belo Monte Dam Suspended by Brazilian Appeals Court Project was illegally authorized by Congress without prior consultation with  indigenous tribes, judges say    Altamira, Brazil: A high-level court yesterday suspended construction of the controversial Belo Monte dam project on the Amazon’s Xingu River, citing overwhelming evidence that indigenous people had not been properly consulted prior to government approval of the project. A group of judges from Brazil's Regional Federal Tribunal (TRF1) upheld an earlier decision that declared the Brazilian Congress’s authorization of the project in 2005 to be illegal. The decision concludes that the Brazilian Constitution and ILO Convention 169, to which Brazil is party, require that Congress can only authorize the use of water resources for hydroelectric projects after an independent assessment of environmental impacts and subsequent consultations with affected indigenous peoples.    The ruling means that Brazilian Congress will have to correct its previous error by organizing consultations on the project’s impacts with affected indigenous peoples of the Xingu River, especially the Juruna, Arara and Xikrin tribes. Their opinions should be considered in a Congressional decision on whether to authorize Belo Monte, and in the meantime the project consortium has been ordered to suspend construction. Project consortium Norte Energia, S.A, led by the parastatal energy company Eletrobras, faces a daily fine of R$500,000, or about US$250,000, if it does not comply with the suspension. The dam consortium is expected to appeal the decision in the Brazilian Supreme Court.   “The court’s decision highlights the urgent need for the Brazilian government and Congress to respect the federal constitution and international agreements on prior consultations with indigenous peoples regarding projects that put their livelihoods and territories at risk. Human rights and environmental protection cannot be subordinated to narrow business interests” stated Federal Judge Souza Prudente, who authored the ruling.   “This latest court ruling vindicates what indigenous people, human rights activists and the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office have been demanding all along. We hope that President Dilma’s Attorney General and the head judge of the federal court (TRF1) will not try to subvert this important decision, as they have done in similar situations in the past,” said Brent Millikan of International Rivers, based in Brasilia.   “This decision reinforces the request made by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in April 2011 to suspend the project due to lack of consultations with indigenous communities. We hope that Norte Energia and the government comply with this decision and respect the rights of indigenous communities,” said Joelson Cavalcante of the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), an organization giving legal support to affected communities.   The Brazilian Congress authorized construction of Belo Monte seven years ago without an environmental impact assessment (EIA). A subsequent study - produced by state-owned energy company Eletrobras and three of Brazil’s largest construction companies (Camargo Correa, Andrade Gutierrez, and Odebrecht) - was widely criticized for underestimating socio-environmental impacts, especially on indigenous peoples and other traditional communities living downstream from the huge dam that would divert 80% of the Xingu’s natural flow. The EIA was approved by Brazil’s federal environmental agency (IBAMA) in February 2010 under intense political pressure and over the objections of the agency's own technical staff.   With dam construction racing ahead since June 2011, many of Belo Monte’s forewarned social and environmental consequences are proving real.  As a result, indigenous people have become more vocal in their opposition to Belo Monte.   During the United Nations' Rio+20 conference in June, indigenous leaders launched a 21- day occupation of the dam site, protesting against the growing impacts of the project and broken promises by dam-builders. Two weeks later, indigenous communities detained three Norte Energia engineers on tribal lands. Both protests demanded suspension of the project due to non-compliance of mitigation requirementes. Last month, the Federal Public Prosecutors’ Office filed a lawsuit calling for suspension of the Belo Monte’s installation license, given widespread non-compliance with conditions of the project’s environmental licenses. Given this contentious and convoluted history, the long overdue process of consultations with indigenous peoples on Belo Monte is not likely to produce a positive verdict on Belo Monte, from the point of view of indigenous peoples. Similar conflicts over violations of indigenous rights by dam projects are emerging elsewhere in the Brazilian Amazon.   Last week, in another landmark decision led by judge Souza Prudente, a group of judges from the TRF1 , the same court ordered the immediate suspension of one of five large dams planned for the Teles Pires river, a major tributary of the Tapajos river, noting a lack of prior and informed consultations with the Kayabi, Apiakás and Munduruku indigenous peoples affected by the project.   According to Souza Prudente, "the aggression against indigenous peoples in the case of the Teles Pires dam has been even more violent than in Belo Monte. A political decision to proceed with the construction of five large dams along the Teles Pires river was made by the Ministry of Mines and Energy with no effective analysis of impacts on the livelihoods and territories of indigenous peoples. The Sete Quedas rapids on the Teles Pires river are considered sacred by indigenous peoples and are vital for the reproduction of fish that are a staple of their diets. Yet none of this was taken into account in the basin inventory and environmental impact studies.  Moreover, the government and Congress simply ignored their obligations to ensure prior and informed consultations with indigenous peoples, as determined by the Federal Constitution and ILO Convention 169".   Late yesterday, the President of the TRF1 announced his intention to overturn the decision of Souza Prudente and other federal judges regarding the Teles Pires hydroproject, marking a growing crisis within Brazil’s judiciary system over the Dilma Rousseff administration’s ambitious dam-building plans in the Amazon.

World Bank Group Opens Case on Eco Oro Minerals Gold Mine in Fragile Colombian Wetlands

  FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE   Press Contact: Astrid Puentes Riaño, Co-Director, AIDA, (+52) 155-2301-6639, [email protected] Kristen Genovese, CIEL, (+31) 0652-773-272, [email protected] Jen Moore, MiningWatch, (+1) 613-569-3439, [email protected] Miguel Ramos, Comité por la Defensa del Agua, (+57) 314-416-4531, [email protected]   World Bank Group Opens Case on Eco Oro Minerals Gold Mine  in Fragile Colombian Wetlands IFC’s Ombudsman to hear complaints of downstream communities   Bucaramanga, Colombia – Late last week, the World Bank Group accepted a complaint and will evaluate its investment in Eco Oro Mineral’s Angostura mining project, a proposed large-scale gold mine located in a fragile, high-altitude wetland called the Santurbán páramo, which provides water to over 2.2 million Colombians.  The Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO), the independent grievance mechanism of the International Finance Corporation (IFC), will review complaints alleging that the IFC failed to evaluate the project’s potentially severe and irreversible social and environmental impacts.   The CAO’s decision was prompted by a complaint submitted last month by groups that would be affected by the project in Bucaramanga, Colombia.  The complaint asserts that the IFC, the World Bank’s private-sector lending arm, ignored its own policies when it invested US$11.79 million in the Vancouver-based company’s project.   “It is outrageous that such a damaging mining initiative has the backing of the World Bank, whose mission is to advance real and sustainable development,” said attorney Miguel Ramos of the Committee for the Defense of Water and the Santurbán Páramo, a coalition of nearly 40 local groups which spearheaded the complaint before the CAO. “There could be some 20 counties whose water will be affected by this project.”   The CAO’s Ombudsman will evaluate the case before the CAO determines whether a full audit is warranted. An audit would examine if the IFC’s environmental and social policies have been violated. In May 2011, following controversial hearings and protests numbering in the tens of thousands, the Colombian Ministry of the Environment rejected Eco Oro’s initial request for an environmental license, citing environmental, constitutional and international law prohibiting mining activity in páramo wetlands.    Páramos are fragile ecosystems that supply about 75% of Colombia’s freshwater, including the drinking water of millions of people, and play a key role in mitigating and adaptation to climate change.    The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and MiningWatch Canada supported the Committee’s request that the CAO audit the project and that the IFC withdraws its funding of the project.     “The IFC sets the standard for future investment in Colombia, and must be extra careful to avoid promoting unsustainable projects such as Angostura,” said Astrid Puentes Riaño, Co-Director of AIDA.  “We are confident that this investigation will reveal that the IFC did not even ensure minimal protection for communities and the environment when it failed to require necessary impact assessments before investing.”   “Prior armed conflict in this area could further compound the deleterious impacts this project would have on communities and their water supplies. Nonetheless, the IFC invested, explicitly hoping to spur greater interest in Colombia’s mining sector,” said Jen Moore, Latin America Program Coordinator for MiningWatch Canada.  “This evaluation is warranted and ultimately, the IFC should pull out.”   The CAO will review allegations that the IFC glossed over potential security issues related to Eco Oro’s project. The complaint questions the IFC’s original assessment, providing documented evidence of violence associated with guerrilla and paramilitary activity following a major military operation and the establishment of military installations in the area around 2003.    Eco Oro holds mining rights to nearly 30,000 hectares (74,130 acres) of land in the Santurbán páramo near the city of Bucaramanga in the northeastern department of Santander.  Eco Oro’s project has already stimulated investments from at least five other companies in the immediate area, more than doubling the area under mining concessions in the páramo.   Full text of the complaint here (in Spanish).

Leaders of Brazilian movement opposed to controversial Belo Monte dam threatened with imprisonment, for Lawful Protests

International Groups Denounce Attempts to Criminalize Civil Society Leaders before OAS and UN Human Rights Bodies.

Protecting the rich marine life of Cabo Pulmo Reef

Complaint filed against World Bank Group for funding Eco Oro Minerals gold mine in fragile Colombian wetlands

Downstream community submits complaint to the IFC’s Ombudsman.  

Who can protect us if the Inter-American System of Human Rights is weakened?

By Astrid Puentes, co-director of AIDA, @astridpuentes I’m writing from Cochabamba, where I’m attending the 42nd General Assembly of the Organization of American States (OAS). This is the first time I have come to Bolivia and to a General Assembly. I am here to support our efforts to truly “strengthen the Inter-American System” and to stand against proposals from OAS member states that could limit the independence and effectiveness of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). Our goal is to preserve the autonomy and role of the IACHR, and, thus, to guarantee human rights in the region: To protect our rights, yours and mine. Here’s a summary of what is a complex story. A number of member states launched an effort to strengthen the Inter-American System of the Protection of Human Rights in 2011, two years after the IACHR and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights modified their rules of procedure. This effort is a direct response from several member states after the IACHR brought up concerns about human rights in their countries. A working group was then created last year to evaluate how the Inter-American System of Human Rights could be “strengthened.” The group produced a report that the Commission has responded to and that NGOs like ours will also comment on. A few days ago, the Secretary General of the OAS, José Miguel Insulza, published a report on the subject. Personally, I think it is inadequate because several of his recommendations will actually weaken, and not strengthen, the system. For example, he says there is “a loophole in the statute of the commission on the figure of the precautionary measures that could be filled by... the General Assembly of the OAS.” It is worth mentioning that it is the IACHR that determines its own rules, a way to ensure its independence. Insulza’s report left out issues he’d been asked to address, such as options for improving the financing for the Inter-American System. Based on his recommendations, the result would be contrary to the same objective that Insulza and member states have set as their main goal. Fortunately, Insulza in his declarations during the General Assembly dismissed some of the recommendations that could have drained the strength of the Inter-American Human Rights System. The important points of the “strengthening” process that will be discussed at the General Assembly in Cochabamba – and no doubt afterwards – include: Financing the Inter-American Human Rights System. This is essential, as you can’t ask the IACHR to operate efficiently on a meager budget. “Unify in a constructive manner” what the member states and the IACHR understand as the precautionary measures. This is an issue presented by some member states and brought up by Secretary Insulza. It was frankly a surprise that this point came from the very report of the secretary for two reasons: a) abiding by what the system dictates is part of what member states already agreed to in creating the System, and b) because the Inter-American Court has been very clear in determining that the measures are obligatory. What can we expect of member states? I mean, who likes to get their dirty laundry published in the media? This is not to say that they are acting irrationally. Whether the IACHR should have a greater role in promoting human rights than protecting them. That is to say, whether it should provide more advice to the member states on how to respect human rights, or rather review complaints of human rights violations that come its way. Pulling Ears To understand this process it is important to know the motivations that have prompted member states to push for these changes. Coincidentally, states like Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuelawant “to strengthen” the system precisely when the IACHR has handed down important decisions against them, namely: 1. It has called on Brazil to suspend construction of the Belo Monte dam in Brazil for violating indigenous rights and threatening the environment, 2. The Report on Democracy and Human Rights in Venezuela exposed serious violations, 3. The severe human rights violations in Colombia have been included a number of times in Chapter IV of the commission’s annual report, 4. Ecuador has been questioned multiple times by the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, among other examples. A Conflict of Interests If we put this differently and speak instead of member states but of a director whose organization is about to hire a close relative, there would be no doubt that this would be declared incompatible because of a conflict of interests. Or, put even more plainly, if a referee was assigned to the final of the World Cup of Soccer and he had the same nationality as one of the teams, then obviously there would be protests from the other team. These impediments don’t exist in the OAS. The same member states against whom the complaints are made by the IACHR can modify its functions through the General Assembly. It is exactly for this reason that restraint is required even when they don’t agree with the System’s decisions. It is vital that the states respect the independence of the Inter-American System in discourse and practice. They must reiterate their compromise with the agreements dating back more than 60 years and support the bodies that were created for the very purpose of guaranteeing justice in cases of human rights violations. (This text in Spanish)

Belo Monte Dam controversy to be part of UN’s Review of Brazil’s Human Rights Record

Central to this debate will be the multiple claims of human rights violations surrounding the construction of the Belo Monte Hydroelectric dam, slated for the Xingu River in Brazil.

Prior consultation: An opportunity for life, respect and diversity

By Héctor Herrera, legal advisor, AIDA, @RJAColombia Colombia’s ethnic groups have decrees and laws that protect their cultural persity, that defend the individual and collective livelihood of these native and traditional peoples and communities. Article 6 of Convention No. 169 of the International Labour Organization (ILO) stipulates that indigenous peoples have the right to prior consultation. That means that they should participate in defining the measures that could have a direct impact on them, whether legislative (such as laws or decrees) or administrative (environmental permits for highways, dams, mines, oil wells, and the like). The negotiations should be carried out in good faith and with the goal of reaching agreements on all sides. This has become very important in Colombia, a multiethnic, multicultural, and diverse country. According to the Luis Ángel Arango Library, 65 indigenous languages in 12 language families are spoken in Colombia, of which 34 have less than one thousand speakers. Traditional Afro groups speak two different Creole languages. Yet all of these languages are in danger. Colombia also is extremely diverse in biological species globally, ranking first in birds, second in amphibians and butterflies, third in reptiles, and fourth in mammals, according to the Humboldt Institute. Colombian newspaper El Espectador reported 2011 data showing that 10% of all biodiversity is found on 1% of the planet’s surface. In Columbia, 29.8% of this is collective indigenous territory and 5% is collective traditional Afro territory. Understanding this, prior consultation emerges as an opportunity to protect the cultural and ethnic persity of Colombia and defend the inpidual and collective livelihood of the many native and traditional peoples and communities. It is, too, an opportunity to protect the ecosystems that these ethnic groups inhabit as well as to protect life in all its forms. This does not mean forcing anybody to adopt a conservation, extractive, or development model.  It simply means making sure that an effective space is provided for clear, honest, and intercultural dialogue with ethnic groups on measures that could affect them, whether legislative or administrative measures or national laws or extractive mining projects. This is completely in line with the stipulations of Article 6 of Convention No. 169 of the ILO . This right has also been recognized in numerous national and international legal documents. On the international level, we have the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted in 2007 (PDF file). In Colombia, we have the Political Constitution, which protects the rights of ethnic groups to their collective territory and the rights of all of society to a healthy environment. With the backing of international legal documents and the Political Constitution, the Constitutional Court of Colombia upheld the right to prior consultation for the “Embera indigenous people” in relation to the construction of the Urrá dam in 1998 and for Amazon indigenous peoples on the fumigation of illegal crops in 2003. In other cases, the High Court declared unconstitutional the National Development Plan of 2006-2010, the forestry law of 2006 and the mining code reform of 2010 because the proponents had not consulted with ethnic groups. There are yet more cases outside Colombia, such as Bolivia with the Multinational Constitution of 2009 and Ecuador with the Intercultural and Multinational Constitution of 1998, both of which recognize the right to prior consultation. So too Peru, where a law on this right was just passed this year. Culture, language and a view of the world – all of these can live on through time if we respect them and guarantee people’s rights, including the right to prior consultation. The protection of this right could also contribute to the protection of important ecosystems and of biological persity, both of which are vital issues as we face unprecedented climate change and environmental degradation.