Project
ShutterstockTowards an end to subsidies that promote overfishing
Overfishing is one of the main problems for the health of our ocean. And the provision of negative subsidies to the fishing sector is one of the fundamental causes of overfishing.
Fishing subsidies are financial contributions, direct or indirect, that public entities grant to the industry.
Depending on their impacts, they can be beneficial when they promote the growth of fish stocks through conservation and fishery resource management tools. And they are considered negative or detrimental when they promote overfishing with support for, for example, increasing the catch capacity of a fishing fleet.
It is estimated that every year, governments spend approximately 22 billion dollars in negative subsidies to compensate costs for fuel, fishing gear and vessel improvements, among others.
Recent data show that, as a result of this support, 63% of fish stocks worldwide must be rebuilt and 34% are fished at "biologically unsustainable" levels.
Although negotiations on fisheries subsidies, within the framework of the World Trade Organization, officially began in 2001, it was not until the 2017 WTO Ministerial Conference that countries committed to taking action to reach an agreement.
This finally happened in June 2022, when member countries of the World Trade Organization reached, after more than two decades, a binding agreement to curb some harmful fisheries subsidies. It represents a fundamental step toward achieving the effective management of our fisheries resources, as well as toward ensuring global food security and the livelihoods of coastal communities.
The agreement reached at the 12th WTO Ministerial Conference provides for the creation of a global framework to reduce subsidies for illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing; subsidies for fishing overexploited stocks; and subsidies for vessels fishing on the unregulated high seas. It also includes measures aimed at greater transparency and accountability in the way governments support their fisheries sector.
The countries agreed to continue negotiating rules to curb other harmful subsidies, such as those that promote fishing in other countries' waters, overfishing and the overcapacity of a fleet to catch more fish than is sustainable.
If we want to have abundant and healthy fishery resources, it is time to change the way we have conceived fishing until now. We must focus our efforts on creating models of fishery use that allow for long-term conservation.
Partners:
UN Representative on Indigenous Peoples asked to investigate human rights violations caused by Panama’s Barro Blanco dam
Washington, DC, United States. 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. The Panamanian and international organizations also asked Mr. Anaya to call on the government of Panama to immediately halt the dam’s construction until the threats to the rights of the indigenous Ngӓbe people affected by the project have been fully addressed. The Barro Blanco controversy received special attention at the UN climate talks held last week in Bonn, Germany, because the project is registered under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), a carbon offsetting scheme established under the Kyoto Protocol. “The Barro Blanco dam will directly affect Ngӓbe people, yet we were not even consulted about the project before it was approved,” said Weni Bagama, an indigenous Ngӓbe leader of the Movimiento 10 de Abril, a community-based movement defending the Tabasará River from development projects. In September 2012, the UN Development Programme (UNDP) conducted a fact-finding mission at the project site and interviewed Ngäbe community members about projected impacts. UNDP’s assessment report confirmed that the dam will flood homes and religious, historical and cultural sites in the Ngӓbe-Buglé territory. The report further documented the project’s impacts, including that the dam will convert the flowing Tabasará River into a stagnant lake ecosystem, affecting the Ngäbe’s diet and means of subsistence. “Despite proof that the dam will have grave impacts on the Ngӓbe way of life and cultural heritage, the construction of the dam continues,” added Ms. Bagama. “We urge Mr. Anaya to investigate the situation and do all he can to protect the rights of the indigenous peoples affected by this project.” “The public forum where the project was discussed was held as a community meeting without a clear notification of its true objective, and there was no representation from the affected indigenous communities,” said Tania Arosemena, Legal Director of the Environmental Advocacy Center, Panama (CIAM by its Spanish initials). “The consultation process did not comply with the minimum standards demanded by national and international law on this matter.” CIAM filed a lawsuit in 2011 on behalf of members of the Ngäbe communities, who challenge the approval of the project’s environmental impact assessment. That suit is pending. Several of the organizations that wrote to Mr. Anaya also raised the Barro Blanco case at the UN climate talks in Bonn last week. “The Barro Blanco project illustrates an urgent need for reform within the CDM,” said Alyssa Johl, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL). “Once a project has been registered under the CDM, affected communities have no means to voice their concerns regarding the project’s social and environmental impacts. The UN climate regime must establish a process that allows communities to seek recourse for the harms associated with CDM projects, as well as a process to deregister projects where there are clear violations of CDM rules as in the case of Barro Blanco.” “Given the CDM’s lack of a complaint procedure and the Panamanian government’s failure to protect the Ngäbe’s rights, the communities need Mr. Anaya’s support,” said Abby Rubinson, associate attorney in Earthjustice’s International Program. “We appreciate Mr. Anaya’s past efforts to engage the Panamanian government to respond to the Ngäbe’s concerns, and we ask him to continue to play this much-needed role to prevent further violations.” The Panamanian non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that signed the letter to Mr. Anaya were CIAM, Movimiento 10 de Abril, and Asociación Ambientalista de Chiriquí. CIEL, Earthjustice, Inter-American Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), International Rivers, Carbon Market Watch, Both ENDS, Collective Voices for Peace, Salva la Selva and Marin Interfaith Task Force on the Americas comprised the international groups that signed the letter to Mr. Anaya.
Read more
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.
Read moreReport 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. Huancayo, Peru – The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) released a report on the situation in La Oroya, a city in the central Andean region of Peru that is at the center of a controversial case of industrial pollution caused by a poly-metallic smelter in operation since 1922. For decades, the people of La Oroya have been exposed to high levels of air pollution stemming from the complex’s emissions of toxic substances including lead, cadmium, arsenic and sulfur dioxide. In the middle of the 2000s La Oroya was identified as one of the 10 most polluted cities in the world. According to independent studies, 97% of children between the ages of 6 months and 6 years, and 98% of those between 7 and 12 years old still have high levels of lead in their blood. The percentage reaches 100% in La Oroya Antigua, the area closest to the smelter. The effects of lead poisoning are irreversible. Doe Run Peru, a subsidiary of the U.S.-based Doe Run Company, began operating the complex after its privatization in 1997. Both the company and the Peruvian State have failed to comply with their obligations to prevent environmental impact and respect the human rights of the population of La Oroya. In response, the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) and other organizations requested the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) in 2005 to issue precautionary measures for people whose health was at serious risk from the pollution in the city. On August 31, 2007 the IACHR ordered the State to adopt measures to protect the health, integrity and life of a group of residents of La Oroya. The precautionary measures require Peru to provide a specialized medical diagnostic to the beneficiaries plus specialized and adequate medical treatment to those who, based on the diagnosis, are in danger of irreparable damage to their physical integrity or lives. Also since 2007, a complaint against Peru has been pending before the IACHR for the violation of human rights due to the toxic emissions from the La Oroya Metallurgical Complex. AIDA, APRODEH, Earthjustice and the Center for Human Rights and Environment (CEDHA) are representing the victims and the beneficiaries of the precautionary measures in the case. “AIDA has been working and monitoring the situation in La Oroya for over a decade. Over this time we have seen the extent of the damage to victims’ health in La Oroya due to the pollution that they have been and continue to be exposed to. The State must assume its obligations and fully comply with the IACHR´s precautionary measures that are in effect”, said Maria Jose Veramendi, an AIDA legal advisor. Meanwhile, parents of children with high levels of lead in their blood have tried to obtain compensation for the damages through a collective action in the United States (Missouri), headquarters of the complex’s parent company The Renco Group. In late 2010, Renco initiated international arbitration alleging its rights as a foreign investor as guaranteed by the Free Trade Agreement between Peru and the United States were violated. Renco asked for compensation of $800 million. “The company not only denied the impacts on the citizens and tried to evade responsibility, but in the face of the protests it pursued a campaign of stigmatization and attacks against those who were trying to defend their rights”, said Souhayr Belhassen, president of the FIDH. This case illustrates the conflict between international human rights law and investor protection. It also exposes the legal strategy of the companies allegedly involved in human rights violations that seek to evade responsibility and deny victims their right to reparation. The FIDH report, entitled Metallurgical Complex of La Oroya: When investor protection threatens human rights, includes a series of recommendations directed at the Peruvian authorities and the company involved. AIDA and APRODEH, as organizations representing the victims of La Oroya before the Inter-American Human Rights System, thank the FIDH and believe that the report is an important contribution to visualize the increasingly serious human rights violations suffered by the residents of La Oroya, who still expect the State to recognize its responsibility and bring justice to their claims. At the same time, the Archdiocese of Huancayo, whose role in defending the right to a healthy environment in La Oroya has been crucial, says the report is a major contribution to its work. See de PDF version of the report.
Read more