Project
Photo: Ana Rodríguez Carrington (CC BY 2.0)Victory: Biosphere Reserve in Baja California Saved from Toxic Mine
Known as an “ecological treasure house,” the Sierra La Laguna Biosphere Reserve at the southern tip of Baja California will not be spoiled by toxic mine waste, thanks in part to AIDA’s advocacy.
The reserve was once an island, so it’s home to rare plant and animal species. Canyons, swimming holes, and hot springs can be found in its granite mountain range and lowland tropical forests.
Thanks to AIDA and our partners in Mexico, the Mexican government denied an environmental permit for the Paredones Amarillos gold mine, halting the project for the time being. To protect the biosphere reserve, AIDA helped educate community groups and decision makers about the mine's risks. This helped to build the political momentum necessary for the government to deny the permit.
To extract gold from the mountains, the Canadian company Vista Gold proposed to carve out huge quantities of rock—each ton containing a mere gram of gold–-grind it into sludge, and treated it with cyanide. The company planned to dump massive amounts of toxic waste (called “tailings”) behind a dam intended to store it forever. Unfortunately, tailings dams can break for various reasons, as happened at Bolivia’s Porco mine in 1996. When that dam collapsed, more than a quarter million metric tons of tailings flooded the river and contaminated 500 miles (800 km) of waterways in Bolivia, Argentina and Paraguay.
The mine could also cause acid mine drainage. When sulfur-containing rocks are exposed to air and water, sulfuric acid forms, which causes toxic heavy metals to dissolve and drain into the watershed. The risk of acid mine drainage in Sierra La Laguna was significant and the human and environmental cost would have been tremendous: thousands of people and countless wildlife in the reserve rely on its water for survival.
Depleting freshwater is a further threat because mines use tremendous quantities of water. Owing to the scarcity of water in the reserve, Vista Gold proposed to build a plant on the Pacific coast to remove salt from sea water in a highly energy-intensive process, and then pump the water 45 km to the mine site. The desalination plant posed a threat to the endangered leatherback sea turtle.
Singly and together, the mine’s impacts would have devastated a rare jewel, a unique and lush paradise worth saving for future generations.
Related projects
Ombudsman finds the IFC failed to comply with its investment standards in Colombia
The office of the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman found that the International Finance Corporation cannot guarantee that the Angostura mine will not have impacts on the environment. Washington/Ottawa/Bogotá/Ámsterdam. The office of the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO) has issued its final report on the complaint brought against the International Finance Corporation's (IFC) investment in Eco Oro Minerals’ Angostura mine in the high-altitude wetlands – known as páramos – of Santurbán, Colombia. The office warned that the corporation has not met all the standards required of its investments, including an assessment of potential impacts on biodiversity. The investigation was triggered by a complaint filed by the Comité por la Defensa del Agua y el Páramo de Santurbán (Committee for the Defense of Water and the Paramo de Santurban), with the support of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), the Center for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO), the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) and MiningWatch Canada. "The biodiversity of Santurbán is critical to ensuring our water supply. Therefore, any threat to its biodiversity affects the water resources of the entire metropolitan area of Bucaramanga," said Alix Mancilla, of the Santurbán Committee. The report also states that the IFC failed to assess the impacts of the entire mining project, and instead only concentrated on the impacts of the exploration stage, despite the fact that it justifies its investment on the basis of the supposed benefits that the eventual mine would bring. The CAO found that the "potential to comply with IFC’s environmental and social standards was uncertain and potentially challenging" during the extraction phase. In its conclusion, the Ombudsman points out that "one of the stated purposes of the IFC's investment was to develop the studies necessary to determine whether the project could comply with IFC's [performance standards]. " However, the company did not complete the required studies, including an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment, a biodiversity baseline study, and critical habitat assessments. Despite repeated lack of compliance by the client, the CAO found that the "IFC has not pursued a remedy, but has made subsequent investments in the company." "If the purpose of IFC's investment was to determine the viability of the project, there is no justification for the lack of studies – studies that are required to make an investment decision. You cannot greenlight a project in such a critical region for the population of Bucaramanga without assessing its actual consequences," declared Carla Garcia Zendejas of CIEL. The IFC's response to the Ombudsman’s report did not acknowledge any wrongdoing or make commitments to address its findings. Instead, the IFC merely reiterated its justification for investing in the project, claiming that the eventual mine will bring employment and revenue. The response is silent regarding its client's intent to file an investment dispute under the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. "It is very serious that despite failures in the risk assessment, the IFC has continued to invest in the Angostura mining project," added Kris Genovese, from SOMO. “It is disappointing, but not surprising, that the IFC has failed once again to respond to the findings of a CAO investigation.” AIDA attorney Carlos Lozano Acosta explained that “the project is illegal; that’s why its license was denied in 2011, and why the Constitutional Court ratified the prohibition of mining in páramos. It worries us that the IFC invested in a company whose project, from the beginning, was not viable, and who would file an international lawsuit against Colombia, one of the member states of the World Bank.” The report reveals that the IFC has an explicit policy of investing in junior mining companies with limited capacity to manage environmental and social issues, in countries where the regulatory framework is weak or not enforced. "It is time for the IFC to withdraw its investment in Eco Oro and stop investing in junior mining companies, as has been done in Colombia and elsewhere, knowing the serious social and environmental damage this entails and the context of impunity in which these companies are operating," stated Jen Moore of MiningWatch. "As communities affected by the mine, we will continue challenging the project in court, and we will use all legal means at our disposal to stop it, as we have done so far," affirmed Elizabeth Martinez from the Committee for Santurban. Currently, Colombia's Constitutional Court is considering a legal action filed by the Santurbán Committee with support from AIDA, concerning the lack of citizen participation in the demarcation of the wetland. A decision is expected soon. The IFC is the private-sector lending arm of the World Bank Group. The CAO is an independent accountability mechanism that receives complaints from people who may be affected by IFC investment projects. The CAO’s report and communiqué, including the IFC’s response can be found here: Communiqué: http://www.cao-ombudsman.org/cases/document-links/documents/CAOCommuniqueEcoOroSummaryofFindingsAugust252016.pdf Report: http://www.cao-ombudsman.org/cases/document-links/documents/CAOComplianceInvestigationReportonIFCinvestmentinEcoOroMinerals-English.pdf Response by the IFC: http://www.cao-ombudsman.org/cases/document-links/documents/EcoOro-IFCManagementResponsetoCAOInvestigationReport-5August2016.pdf
Read more
Civil society urges the United Nations to document human rights violations committed by businesses in Mexico
A group of organizations delivered their report highlighting more than 60 cases of violations across the country. Mining, infrastructure and energy projects—including hydroelectric and wind—were responsible for the greatest number of human rights violations. Mexico City, Mexico. On the occasion of the United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights’ official visit to Mexico, a coalition of more than 100 civil society organizations, movements and networks prepared a report outlining cases of human rights violations perpetrated by corporations in Mexico. The report highlights Mexico’s current human rights crisis, which has been recognized by various UN agencies[1] and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.[2] It lays out the clear dangers facing those who protect human rights, the land and their own territory.[3] Documented cases of human rights abuses involve 50 foreign, 41 national, and eight public companies. More than half the cases involved intimidation and/or attacks against human rights defenders. The most frequent violations were to the rights to: land and territory; access to information; health; a healthy environment; and consultation and free, prior and informed consent. During the Working Group’s regional visits, affected communities will show the experts the negative impacts caused by companies linked to mining, wind power, hydroelectric dams, agribusiness, infrastructure, oil and gas exploitation, real estate, tourism and maquilas (manufacturing facilities), among others. At the suggestion of civil society, the Working Group will meet with companies including: Grupo México, Grupo Higa, Grupo BAL, Bimbo, Goldcorp, TransCanada, Eólica del Sur, and CEMEX. They will also meet with the state-run production companies, Petróleos Mexicanos (Pemex) and the Federal Electricity Commission (CFE). Situations in Mexico that systematically hinder compliance with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights include: State Capture: complicity, corruption and impunity. In many documented cases, the Mexican State, at all levels (federal, state and municipal), has served business interests above public interest. This has been evident in: the promotion of rules and regulations that benefit business interests over human rights; the use of public force against peaceful social mobilization; the support of extractive projects against community interests; the lack of inquiry and sanction by the judiciary regarding allegations of human rights abuses; and the criminalization of environmental advocates. Structural reforms that weaken the protection of human rights and support companies, such as the energy reform, which does not always consider its impacts on human rights, and does not guarantee the participation and right of access to information of affected communities. Lack of consultation and the free, prior, informed, culturally appropriate, and in good faith consent of affected communities; lack of due diligence on the part of companies; and the proliferation of megaprojects with severe impacts on human rights. Lack of access to justice and non-compliance with rules and judgments, by companies as well as the Mexican State. On multiple occasions, affected people who have reported rights violations have later been the victim of attacks. And, even if a court—including the Mexican Supreme Court— ruled in their favor, the fulfillment of that ruling was not observed. Reduction of participation mechanisms and an increase in abuses against human rights defenders. The cases illustrate an increase in murders, criminalization, threats and attacks on human rights defenders who have spoken out against mega-projects and business activities. In 2011, the United Nations Human Rights Council issued the "Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights" in order to empower States to exercise control over business activities, ensure due diligence, and guarantee access to effective and appropriate remedial measures. In order to monitor the application of these principles, the Council established the Working Group on Business and Human Rights, whose visit Mexico from August 29th to September 7th 2016 will be their second visit to Latin America. On behalf of the organizations and communities that prepared this report, we hope that the conclusions reached by the Working Group at the close of their visit will reflect what Mexico truly needs. We urge companies operating in Mexico, as well as the Mexican State, to consider the recommendations seriously and implement them in current and future operations. For more information in social media, following along: #ONUenMX The report was created with the participation of the following organizations and human rights groups (in alphabetical order): Alianza de la Costa Verde Ambiente y Desarrollo Humano Asociación Interamericana para la Defensa del Ambiente (AIDA) Bios Iguana Campaña Nacional Sin Maíz No Hay País Cartocrítica Casa del Migrante Saltillo Centro de Derechos Humanos “Fray Bartolomé de Las Casas” Centro de Derechos Humanos “Fray Francisco de Vitoria” Centro de Derechos Humanos “Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez” (Centro Prodh) Centro de Derechos Humanos de la Montaña, Tlachinollan Centro de Derechos Humanos Toaltepeyolo Centro de Derechos Humanos Zeferino Ladrillero (CDHZL) Centro “Fray Julián Garcés” Derechos Humanos Centro de Información sobre Empresas y Derechos Humanos (CIEDH) Centro de Reflexión y Acción Laboral (CEREAL) Centro Diocesano para los Derechos Humanos “Fray Juan de Larios” Centro Mexicano de Derecho Ambiental (CEMDA) Colectivo sí a la vida No al basurero tóxico en Noria de la Sabina Comités de Cuenca Río Sonora (CCRS) Comité de Defensa Integral de Derechos Humanos Gobixha (CODIGODH) Comité de Derechos Humanos de Tabasco (CODEHUTAB) Comisión Mexicana para la Defensa y Promoción de los Derechos Humanos (CMDPDH) Consejo en Defensa de la Vida y el Territorio TiyatTlali DECA Equipo Pueblo DH Rayoactivo El Barzón Chihuahua EcoRed Feminista la Lechuza Buza Enfoque DH Estancia del Migrante en Querétaro Frente de Pueblos en Defensa de la Tierra y el Agua (FPDTA) Fundar, Centro de Análisis e Investigación Foro de Derechos Humanos y Resistencias de la Sierra de Puebla Greenpeace México Grupo de Estudios Ambientales Grupo Focal sobre Empresas y Derechos Humanos Indignación, Promoción y Defensa de los Derechos Humanos Instituto Mexicano para el Desarrollo Comunitario (IMDEC) Movimiento Ciudadano en Defensa de la Loma Movimiento Mexicano de Afectados por las Presas y en Defensa de los Ríos (MAPDER) Movimiento Mesoamericano contra el Modelo Extractivo Minero (M4) OrganicConsumersAssociation (México) Oxfam México Programa Universitario de Derechos Humanos, Programa de Incidencia, Programa de Medio Ambiente, UIA Proyecto de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales (ProDESC) Proyecto sobre Organización, Desarrollo, Educación e Investigación (PODER) Red Mexicana de Afectados por la Minería (REMA) Semillas de Vida SMR, Scalabrinianas: misión con Migrantes y Refugiados Serapaz, Servicios y Asesoría para la Paz Y la Red Nacional de Organismos Civiles de Derechos Humanos “Todos los Derechos para Todas y Todos” (conformada por 80 organizaciones en 21 estados de la República mexicana). The information was collected based on the baseline questionnaire for documenting abuses of companies prepared by the Business Information Center and Human Rights(CIEDH) and the network(DESC) https://goo.gl/YLhbSM [1] Declaration of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, ZeidRa’ad Al Hussein, done in his visit to Mexico in October 7, 2015: http://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=16578&LangID=E [2] Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Human Rights situation in Mexico, (OAS.Official Documentation; OEA/Ser.L) ISBN I. Title. II. Series. OAS. Official Documentation; OEA/Ser.L. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.Doc. 44/15 p. 11 http://www.oas.org/es/cidh/informes/pdfs/Mexico2016-es.pdf [3] Institute for Economics & Peace, Global Peace Index 2015 Measuring peace, its causes and its economic value p. 8 http://economicsandpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Global-Peace-Index-Report-2015_0.pdf Mexico´s Rank 140 out of 163 http://www.visionofhumanity.org/#page/indexes/global-peace-index/2016/MEX/OVER
Read moreCivil society urges the United Nations to document human rights violations committed by businesses in Mexico
A group of organizations delivered their report highlighting more than 60 cases of violations across the country. Mining, infrastructure and energy projects—including hydroelectric and wind—were responsible for the greatest number of human rights violations. Mexico City, Mexico. On the occasion of the United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights’ official visit to Mexico, a coalition of more than 100 civil society organizations, movements and networks prepared a report outlining cases of human rights violations perpetrated by corporations in Mexico. The report highlights Mexico’s current human rights crisis, which has been recognized by various UN agencies[1] and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.[2] It lays out the clear dangers facing those who protect human rights, the land and their own territory.[3] Documented cases of human rights abuses involve 50 foreign, 41 national, and eight public companies. More than half the cases involved intimidation and/or attacks against human rights defenders. The most frequent violations were to the rights to: land and territory; access to information; health; a healthy environment; and consultation and free, prior and informed consent. During the Working Group’s regional visits, affected communities will show the experts the negative impacts caused by companies linked to mining, wind power, hydroelectric dams, agribusiness, infrastructure, oil and gas exploitation, real estate, tourism and maquilas (manufacturing facilities), among others. At the suggestion of civil society, the Working Group will meet with companies including: Grupo México, Grupo Higa, Grupo BAL, Bimbo, Goldcorp, TransCanada, Eólica del Sur, and CEMEX. They will also meet with the state-run production companies, Petróleos Mexicanos (Pemex) and the Federal Electricity Commission (CFE). Situations in Mexico that systematically hinder compliance with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights include: State Capture: complicity, corruption and impunity. In many documented cases, the Mexican State, at all levels (federal, state and municipal), has served business interests above public interest. This has been evident in: the promotion of rules and regulations that benefit business interests over human rights; the use of public force against peaceful social mobilization; the support of extractive projects against community interests; the lack of inquiry and sanction by the judiciary regarding allegations of human rights abuses; and the criminalization of environmental advocates. Structural reforms that weaken the protection of human rights and support companies, such as the energy reform, which does not always consider its impacts on human rights, and does not guarantee the participation and right of access to information of affected communities. Lack of consultation and the free, prior, informed, culturally appropriate, and in good faith consent of affected communities; lack of due diligence on the part of companies; and the proliferation of megaprojects with severe impacts on human rights. Lack of access to justice and non-compliance with rules and judgments, by companies as well as the Mexican State. On multiple occasions, affected people who have reported rights violations have later been the victim of attacks. And, even if a court—including the Mexican Supreme Court— ruled in their favor, the fulfillment of that ruling was not observed. Reduction of participation mechanisms and an increase in abuses against human rights defenders. The cases illustrate an increase in murders, criminalization, threats and attacks on human rights defenders who have spoken out against mega-projects and business activities. In 2011, the United Nations Human Rights Council issued the "Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights" in order to empower States to exercise control over business activities, ensure due diligence, and guarantee access to effective and appropriate remedial measures. In order to monitor the application of these principles, the Council established the Working Group on Business and Human Rights, whose visit Mexico from August 29th to September 7th 2016 will be their second visit to Latin America. On behalf of the organizations and communities that prepared this report, we hope that the conclusions reached by the Working Group at the close of their visit will reflect what Mexico truly needs. We urge companies operating in Mexico, as well as the Mexican State, to consider the recommendations seriously and implement them in current and future operations. For more information in social media, following along: #ONUenMX The report was created with the participation of the following organizations and human rights groups (in alphabetical order): Alianza de la Costa Verde Ambiente y Desarrollo Humano Asociación Interamericana para la Defensa del Ambiente (AIDA) Bios Iguana Campaña Nacional Sin Maíz No Hay País Cartocrítica Casa del Migrante Saltillo Centro de Derechos Humanos “Fray Bartolomé de Las Casas” Centro de Derechos Humanos “Fray Francisco de Vitoria” Centro de Derechos Humanos “Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez” (Centro Prodh) Centro de Derechos Humanos de la Montaña, Tlachinollan Centro de Derechos Humanos Toaltepeyolo Centro de Derechos Humanos Zeferino Ladrillero (CDHZL) Centro “Fray Julián Garcés” Derechos Humanos Centro de Información sobre Empresas y Derechos Humanos (CIEDH) Centro de Reflexión y Acción Laboral (CEREAL) Centro Diocesano para los Derechos Humanos “Fray Juan de Larios” Centro Mexicano de Derecho Ambiental (CEMDA) Colectivo sí a la vida No al basurero tóxico en Noria de la Sabina Comités de Cuenca Río Sonora (CCRS) Comité de Defensa Integral de Derechos Humanos Gobixha (CODIGODH) Comité de Derechos Humanos de Tabasco (CODEHUTAB) Comisión Mexicana para la Defensa y Promoción de los Derechos Humanos (CMDPDH) Consejo en Defensa de la Vida y el Territorio TiyatTlali DECA Equipo Pueblo DH Rayoactivo El Barzón Chihuahua EcoRed Feminista la Lechuza Buza Enfoque DH Estancia del Migrante en Querétaro Frente de Pueblos en Defensa de la Tierra y el Agua (FPDTA) Fundar, Centro de Análisis e Investigación Foro de Derechos Humanos y Resistencias de la Sierra de Puebla Greenpeace México Grupo de Estudios Ambientales Grupo Focal sobre Empresas y Derechos Humanos Indignación, Promoción y Defensa de los Derechos Humanos Instituto Mexicano para el Desarrollo Comunitario (IMDEC) Movimiento Ciudadano en Defensa de la Loma Movimiento Mexicano de Afectados por las Presas y en Defensa de los Ríos (MAPDER) Movimiento Mesoamericano contra el Modelo Extractivo Minero (M4) OrganicConsumersAssociation (México) Oxfam México Programa Universitario de Derechos Humanos, Programa de Incidencia, Programa de Medio Ambiente, UIA Proyecto de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales (ProDESC) Proyecto sobre Organización, Desarrollo, Educación e Investigación (PODER) Red Mexicana de Afectados por la Minería (REMA) Semillas de Vida SMR, Scalabrinianas: misión con Migrantes y Refugiados Serapaz, Servicios y Asesoría para la Paz Y la Red Nacional de Organismos Civiles de Derechos Humanos “Todos los Derechos para Todas y Todos” (conformada por 80 organizaciones en 21 estados de la República mexicana). The information was collected based on the baseline questionnaire for documenting abuses of companies prepared by the Business Information Center and Human Rights(CIEDH) and the network(DESC) https://goo.gl/YLhbSM [1] Declaration of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, ZeidRa’ad Al Hussein, done in his visit to Mexico in October 7, 2015: http://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=16578&LangID=E [2] Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Human Rights situation in Mexico, (OAS.Official Documentation; OEA/Ser.L) ISBN I. Title. II. Series. OAS. Official Documentation; OEA/Ser.L. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.Doc. 44/15 p. 11 http://www.oas.org/es/cidh/informes/pdfs/Mexico2016-es.pdf [3] Institute for Economics & Peace, Global Peace Index 2015 Measuring peace, its causes and its economic value p. 8 http://economicsandpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Global-Peace-Index-Report-2015_0.pdf Mexico´s Rank 140 out of 163 http://www.visionofhumanity.org/#page/indexes/global-peace-index/2016/MEX/OVER
Read more