Search

Environmental Organizations Denounce Flaws and Impacts of the Costa del Pacifico (CIP) Mega-Resort at a Public Hearing (Spanish only)

PARA PUBLICACIÓN INMEDIATA: CEMDA, WildCoast, Conselva, Greenpeace, AIDA   DENUNCIAN ORGANIZACIONES AMBIENTALES IRREGULARIDADES E IMPACTOS DEL PROYECTO CIP ESCUINAPA, DURANTE LA REUNIÓN DE INFORMACIÓN *Manifestación de impacto ambiental presentada de manera fragmentada, sólo es por 93 de las 2,600 hectáreas que abarca el proyecto *Preocupa a pescadores y ONG grave impacto a la actividad pesquera de la región *El proyecto no considera de manera adecuada la planeación de servicios básicos como el agua, y podría poner en riesgo los recursos hídricos de la región   La Paz, BCS a 9 de marzo, 2010 - Durante la Reunión de Información realizada por la Unidad Coordinadora de Participación Social y Transparencia (UCPAST) de la Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (Semarnat), varias organizaciones ambientalistas denunciaron nuevamente las irregularidades e impactos no contemplados en el proyecto “Infraestructura Básica del predio CIP Escuinapa, Sinaloa” promovido por el Fondo Nacional de Fomento al Turismo (FONATUR). La Manifestación de Impacto Ambiental (MIA) del proyecto se presentó de manera fragmentada, presentando análisis de impactos individuales en lugar de manera integral. Esto minimiza los graves impactos socio-ambientales del Proyecto en su conjunto, pues la MIA presentada solamente abarca 93.48 hectáreas, de las 2,600 hectáreas que comprende el Proyecto.   El Centro Integralmente Planeado (CIP) Escuinapa es uno de los proyectos más ambiciosos del actual gobierno y estará ubicado al sur de Sinaloa, dentro de Marismas Nacionales. De acuerdo con Sofía Cortina, abogada de AIDA, “El CIP se construiría alrededor de una de las zonas de humedales más prioritarias para la conservación a nivel internacional, lo que ocasionará un severo desgaste ecológico a la región y un alto impacto a la actividad pesquera en el noroeste del país”. El Proyecto contempla una capacidad de 44,200 habitaciones, 4 campos de golf, 2 marinas, un malecón marítimo del palmar, paseo de los lagos interiores, ramblas comerciales y de entretenimiento, y otros servicios.   Entre otras omisiones legales, las organizaciones destacaron las observaciones y comentarios que se han generado acerca de la MIA. A pesar que se invertirían 200 millones de pesos para estudios en materia ambiental para este proyecto (según manifestó FONATUR en una presentación del proyecto en la página1 del municipio de Escuinapa) “la evaluación del proyecto está fragmentada y no se expone la totalidad de los impactos ambientales que el CIP causaría” puntualizó Cortina. La MIA no incluyó estudios detallados sobre los impactos a especies endémicas como reptiles, peces, moluscos y sobretodo, acerca de las más de 250 especies de aves, como es obligación de acuerdo con la NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2003. A la lista de omisiones, se suma que en la MIA no se señala una planeación detallada para la provisión de los servicios básicos como son el agua y la recolección de desechos sólidos, siendo este último un grave problema actual para el municipio Escuinapa ya que no cuenta con un relleno sanitario.   Adicionalmente, “no se propusieron las medidas de mitigación adecuadas basadas en los criterios de la Convención Ramsar, tratado internacional para la conservación y uso racional de los humedales y sus recursos, de la cual México forma parte y es uno de los países con mayor número de humedales registrados, incluyendo Marismas Nacionales”, comentó Sandra Moguel, abogada del Centro Mexicano de Derecho Ambiental. “Este ecosistema cuenta con un valor especial para la preservación de la diversidad genética y ecológica de la región, es reconocida como hábitat del jaguar, representa alrededor del 10% del total de manglares en México y más de 90 especies de fauna de las cuales 73 se encuentran amenazadas o en peligro de extinción, y es el hábitat de una población de 20,000 aves acuáticas y refugio invernal para más de 100,000 aves acuáticas migratorias”, continuó Moguel.   El CEMDA y la Asociación Interamericana para la Defensa del Ambiente (AIDA), junto con Greenpeace México, Wildcoast, Conselva y Red Manglar, presentaron en abril del 2009, una petición al Secretariado Ramsar informando del incumplimiento del Gobierno Federal en su compromiso como integrante de la Convención, de proteger los humedales mexicanos enlistados en Ramsar. Al igual que Marismas Nacionales, la laguna Huizache-Caimanero, ubicada en el municipio de Rosario, Sinaloa, es un sitio Ramsar de gran importancia para la actividad pesquera de la región y el cual es amenazado a la vez por cuatro proyectos de alto impacto. Actualmente se espera la visita de una misión de verificación internacional.    Tanto pescadores de Sinaloa y Nayarit, como ONG y pobladores, han manifestado su preocupación por una posible resolución a favor del desarrollo del CIP en Escuinapa, debido a que temen la afectación a los ingresos económicos de la actividad pesquera de los lugareños por los impactos sobre el ecosistema que hasta ahora es regulada en gran parte por la existencia de los humedales y manglares de Marismas Nacionales.   Por último Moguel señaló de gran importancia, la participación de las organizaciones ambientales en la Reunión Pública de Información, como ejercicio de involucramiento público en la evaluación de impacto ambiental, para el empoderamiento de la ciudadanía en la toma de decisiones respecto al uso y aprovechamiento de sus recursos naturales.     PARA MAYOR INFORMACIÓN CONTACTAR: Claudia Gómez-Portugal M. Directora de Comunicación 01 (55) 55256136 / 01 (55) 52863323 [email protected]   Sofìa Cortina Segovia Asesora Legal 01 (612) 1221369 [email protected]

Canadian Supreme Court prohibits project splitting and guarantees public participation in environmental assessments (Spanish text only)

PARA PUBLICACIÓN INMEDIATA:     CONTACTO: Jacob Kopas: [email protected] Teléfonos: (+57) 1-338-1277 / 320-316-0379     Corte Suprema de Canadá prohíbe fragmentar proyectos mineros y rectifica la obligatoriedad de evaluaciones de impacto ambiental integrales y con participación pública   Ottawa, Canadá - En un cambio jurisprudencial fundamental, el 21 de enero la Corte Suprema de Canadá determinó que los grandes proyectos mineros están obligados a tener una evaluación de impacto ambiental comprehensiva, sin fragmentar el proyecto, y que garantice la participación pública. La sentencia concluye que las autoridades canadienses, al realizar la evaluación ambiental del proyecto minero Red Chris (un inmenso proyecto minero de oro y cobre a cielo abierto), lo fragmentaron ilegalmente impidiendo así conocer el verdadero impacto ambiental de la obra.   “Celebramos enormemente esta decisión de la Corte Suprema de Canadá, que debería ser replicada por los gobiernos y las empresas mineras, especialmente las canadienses, con grandes intereses en la región”, dijo Jacob Kopas, abogado de la Asociación Interamericana para la Defensa del Ambiente (AIDA). AIDA, CELA y varias organizaciones presentaron un escrito ante la Corte, apoyando la demanda presentada por Ecojustice y otros grupos ambientalistas, resaltando entre otros, que la autorización de este proyecto también desconoce el derecho internacional ambiental.    El proyecto “Red Chris” procesaría 30,000 toneladas métricas de mineral al día y arrojaría los desechos tóxicos en un área remota y prístina de la provincia de Columbia Británica, Canadá, habitada por grandes mamíferos y que es un importante sitio para la reproducción de salmón. Ante los posibles riesgos irreparables que esta mina a cielo abierto implica para esta área y sus pobladores, una evaluación comprehensiva es sin duda, un requisito esencial antes de autorizarlo.   El máximo tribunal canadiense concluyó que el gobierno federal violó las normas aplicables al autorizar este proyecto de manera fragmentada, y también al impedir la participación pública activa de las comunidades y los grupos locales en la evaluación de impactos ambientales para grandes proyectos, como la minería. Estos dos elementos son esenciales dado que proyectos como la mina Red Chris no sólo interesan a los inversionistas y al gobierno, sino también a todas las comunidades locales que de múltiples maneras tienen un interés en las áreas a afectarse.   “En el hemisferio hemos sido testigos de innumerables proyectos con inmensos impactos ambientales y sociales, que desafortunadamente se presentan y evalúan por partes, las minas a cielo abierto son un ejemplo reiterado, por lo que esta sentencia es vital para la región”, dijo Astrid Puentes, Co-Directora de AIDA. “Además, la decisión de la Corte está de acuerdo con normas ambientales internacionales, contribuye a prevenir daños ambientales irreparables y respeta el derecho humano a la participación pública, constituyéndose en un gran ejemplo a seguir”.   ##   Para mayor información ir a: www.aida-americas.org Enlace de información de otras organizaciones: www.ecojustice.ca; www.cela.ca  

Environmental Defense Guide

The purpose of this publication is to promote the use of the Inter-American System of Human Rights for addressing environmental degradation that causes human rights violations.

La Oroya before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights

In an effort to compel the Peruvian government to resolve the health crisis in La Oroya, AIDA appealed to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) in 2005, requesting that the Commission take urgent precautionary measures (in Spanish) to safeguard human rights.  Working together with Earthjustice, CEDHA, and our Peruvian colleagues, we brought this case on behalf of more than 60 adults and children who live in La Oroya and suffer from health problems believed to be caused by the smelter’s pollution. The following year, after the government failed to heed Peruvian court mandates to clean up La Oroya, we submitted a full petition to the IACHR, asking the Commission to thoroughly evaluate the human rights situation and obligate the State of Peru to prevent the Doe Run Peru smelter from further contaminating the city. The Commission responded favorably to our efforts. In 2007, the IACHR requested that the State of Peru take precautionary measures to prevent irreversible harm to the health, integrity, and lives of the people of La Oroya. Specifically, as a first step, the Commission requested that the Peruvian government diagnose and provide specialized medical treatment to the group of people we represent. When the government was slow to comply, the Commission met with the parties again in 2008 and 2009, and successfully motivated the state to implement the measures appropriately, a process currently in progress. In August 2009, the IACHR accepted AIDA’s petition to fully evaluate the case against Peru. It based its decision on the fact that the illnesses and deaths allegedly resulting from the severe pollution constitute potential violations of the human rights to life and integrity. It also found that the State of Peru likely violated the public’s right to information when it manipulated and failed to publish important human health information. Finally, the Commission concluded that the State of Peru unjustifiably delayed compliance with the 2006 decision of the Peruvian Constitutional Tribunal, and thus may be violating citizen’s rights of access to justice and to effective domestic remedies. Now, several years after the IACHR first ordered Peru to provide precautionary measures, it is clear that the state’s efforts have been woefully inadequate. The 65 residents represented by AIDA have received spotty medical attention that falls far short of the “specialized” care that was promised, and the government’s efforts have not reduced health risks in a meaningful way. In March 2010, AIDA and its partners returned for another public hearing at the IACHR, to present evidence that the Peruvian government’s actions fail to satisfy the terms of the 2007 recommendations. Backed by findings from independent experts, AIDA argued that the medical evaluations conducted by the government were never completed and that the city is still contaminated by heavy metal pollution that causes a range of debilitating conditions, especially among children. The State denied these claims, insisting that it has taken sufficient action and the case should be closed. While we wait for a final decision on the case, AIDA will continue to pressure the Peruvian Ministry of Health to comply with its obligations, and to encourage the IACHR to maintain a spotlight on the Peruvian State until the pollution in La Oroya no longer threatens people’s fundamental human rights. Positive changes resulting from this case will not only benefit those we represent, but all residents of La Oroya. A decision from the IACHR will also create a vital precedent that can be applied in other cases throughout the hemisphere. IACHR hearing - La Oroya  Follow us on Twitter: @AIDAorg "Like" our page on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AIDAorg

La Oroya triumphed in the Constitutional Court, but the ruling was not implemented

In 2006, the Peruvian Constitutional Tribunal recognized that high levels of pollution in La Oroya were causing serious health problems for the local population. The Tribunal ordered the Ministry of Health to comply with the law and take urgent action to prevent additional irreversible impacts to the environment and human health. This decision was supported by numerous scientific reports from the government, civil society organizations, and Doe Run Peru, which operates the smelter. In its decision, the Tribunal accepted all the arguments presented by the Peruvian Society for Environmental Law (SPDA), which represented La Oroya citizens in the case with AIDA’s support. The court gave the government 30 days to: Provide emergency medical attention for people contaminated with lead, giving priority to pregnant women and children; Implement an action plan to improve air quality in La Oroya; Declare States of Alert when pollution levels are excessive; Establish epidemiological and environmental monitoring programs. This ruling established a key legal precedent for three fundamental reasons. First, it recognized that extremely high pollution levels like those in La Oroya can cause serious and irreversible harm to people’s health, violating human rights. Second, it reiterated the State’s obligation to protect citizen rights, requiring specific actions to reduce health threats. Third, by ordering the State to coordinate with the polluting company, the Tribunal confirmed that corporations are responsible for conducting their businesses in ways that respect the human rights to health, to life, and to a healthy environment. In response to this ruling, the Peruvian government made some changes, but by no means complied fully with the order. Thus, in 2006, AIDA, in conjunction with Peruvian lawyers, Earthjustice, and CEDHA, brought the case to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Through this case, we seek enforcement of the Peruvian court’s order and implementation of additional measures that would truly protect health in La Oroya. Follow us on Twitter: @AIDAorg "Like" our page on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AIDAorg

Victory: Fishing ban reinstated at World Heritage Site

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Examines Impacts of Large Dams in Latin America

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Examines Impacts of Large Dams in Latin America Washington, D.C. - On November 2, 2009 the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights will hold a hearing on the impacts that large dams in Latin America have on human rights and the environment. Dam-affected peoples and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) will present information showing that Latin-American governments are building dams at great social, environmental and economic costs, often disregarding national and international laws and violating human rights. “More than a million people have already been affected by large dams in Latin America, many of whom are from indigenous and small farming communities,” said Rafael González, Board Member of the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). “More than 300 new dams are being planned throughout the region, which could destroy the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of people and harm precious ecosystems.” The over 40 national and international NGOs requesting this hearing will present findings from AIDA’s forthcoming publication, Large Dams in the Americas: Is the Cure Worse than the Disease?, to the IACHR documenting the poor track record of dam construction in the hemisphere. They will also encourage the Inter-American Commission to make recommendations to member States on how to avoid major environmental damages and human rights violations. “The granting of this hearing by the IACHR is a positive demonstration of their interest in examining the link between large dams and human rights violations,” said Astrid Puentes co-Director of AIDA. “We hope that the IACHR will begin an investigation and recommend that States strictly enforce international standards and human rights law, to avoid major environmental impacts and human rights tragedies.” The human rights impacts of large dams are numerous. Affected communities and stakeholders—mostly indigenous, fishing and farming communities—rarely have the opportunity to participate in decisions on dam developments, and frequently are subjected to intimidation, harassment and even military actions when they oppose projects. Families displaced by large dams often receive inadequate or no compensation. Equally troubling are poorly developed resettlement plans that do not account for lost livelihoods or lack of access to medical attention, fishing areas and farming land, leaving families worse off as a result. Large dams have also had profound environmental impacts. Enormous reservoirs inundate biodiverse wildlife habitats and fertile farmlands. Dams and river diversions also harm fish populations, and are the main cause for the extinction or endangerment of one-third of the world’s freshwater fish species. “We are not against development.” said Father Gabriel Espinoza, spokesperson for communities affected by the El Zapotillo dam in Mexico, and who will speak before the Inter-American Commission. “We understand that a country’s needs for energy and water should be met as a fundamental right of all peoples.” “But governments cannot proceed without consulting and providing information for local communities, according to national and international law. That would violate our fundamental freedoms and disrespect our lives, history, culture and livelihoods.” “There are often better, cheaper, and less-destructive alternatives to building a large dam, whether to meet energy or water needs, or to reduce the impacts from floods,” said Monti Aguirre of International Rivers. “Small-scale, decentralized water supplies and new renewable energy sources, as well as large-scale efficiency and conservation plans are only some of the options available. Unfortunately, governments and corporations frequently ignore these choices or dismiss them out-of-hand when a large dam project is on the table.” The World Commission on Dams, in its ground-breaking report on large dams, Dams and Development, recommends using a comprehensive, participatory process to evaluate needs for water and energy and to assess the full range of available options. The hearing is open to the public and will take place on November 2, 2009, from 5:30 to 6:15 p.m., Room Rubén Darío, 8th Floor of the OAS General Secretariat Building, 1889 F Street NW, Washington, D.C. Guidelines for press coverage of public hearings at http://www.cidh.org/Prensa/guidelinespresscoverageENGL.htm. Opportunities for interviews with presenters after the hearing. For more information on large dams in the Americas: International Rivers, Redlar

Large Dams in the Americas: Is the Cure Worse than the Disease?

The report analyses the problems with large dams from the perspective of human rights and international environmental law.

Victory: Canada supports public participation and environmental assessment

Inter-American Commission admits case on human rights violations in La Oroya

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 19, 2009   IACHR Will Examine Case Against Peru for Violating the Human Rights of Residents of La Oroya, A City Extensively Contaminated by the Doe Run Peru Smelter ► According to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States, Peru may be violating the rights to life, personal integrity, and to information and access to justice, due to toxic pollution from Doe Run Peru’s multi-metal smelter in La Oroya, Peru. ► The potential extension of an environmental management plan for the complex, announced by Peruvian President Garcia, must include effective measures to guarantee against further human rights violations.   WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) will examine a complaint against Peru for human rights violations in La Oroya, a Peruvian town described as one of the “most contaminated places on earth.” AIDA, Earthjustice and CEDHA submitted this case in 2006 with the local support of the Peruvian Society for Environmental Law (SPDA).   In the Inter-American Commission’s recent report accepting the case, it “considers that the alleged deaths and/or health effects of the presumed victims are a consequence of acts and omissions by the State with regard to environmental pollution arising from the multi-metal complex operating in La Oroya, which if proved could constitute a violation of the rights conferred in Articles 4 [life] and 5 [personal integrity] of the American Convention.”   “This claim stems from the lack of action by Peru, considering that the government has known about the impacts of the pollution on persons and the environment for at least ten years without acting to resolve the contamination problem,” states AIDA Co-Director, Astrid Puentes. “Even if some steps have been taken in La Oroya, the measures implemented have not been effective in safeguarding health and the environment, as noted by the Peruvian Constitutional Court, the Ministry of Health, and the Commission.”   “This is excellent news that brings us hope that things will finally improve in La Oroya” said one of the case’s plaintiffs, whose names are confidential.   In 2006 the Constitutional Court of Peru ordered actions to protect public health in the city. The “unjustified delay” in complying with this order may also constitute a violation of the human rights of access to justice and judicial guarantees.   The Commission will also investigate whether Peru’s actions violate the right to access to information and freedom of expression. In addition to serious health effects, this case alleges unjustifiable limits to accessing information about the community’s environmental and human health situation and pressure toward those trying to distribute this information.   The IACHR’s decision to examine the complaint coincides with negotiations between the Peruvian Government and the Doe Run Peru company, owner of the Multi-Metal Complex, over a potential extension for the complex’s Environmental Management Plan (PAMA). The effective implementation of this plan would improve environmental quality in the area. There is little certainty whether the company will ever meet its obligations for environmental controls under this Plan, as the government has already granted several extensions. The Commission will likely monitor the compliance process and consider the results in any final decision regarding the violations of human rights in Peru.   The PAMA does not actually allow for extensions, and the government could fine the company for violating the Plan. If Peru does not impose fines, it would further prolong the unjustified delay of actions necessary to control the pollution in La Oroya and protect the human rights of its inhabitants,” states José Luis Capella, of SPDA. “Any future decision regarding the PAMA must include effective measures to enforce the obligations to improve health and the environment in the city already contained within the Plan.”  Connected with this case, the IACHR also requested in 2007 that Peru implement urgent precautionary measures to guarantee the life and safety of La Oroya residents. These measures insist that Peru provide specialized medical evaluations and treatment for those affected by the toxic pollution.  “The IACHR’s acceptance of this case is vital to protect human rights in La Oroya. It demonstrates that the severe pollution in the city has an impact, not only on the environment, but on human health, and that it affects their human rights,” stated Martin Wagner Director of the International Program of Earthjustice. “We hope the case has positive impact on the protection of human rights in La Oroya and in the region."