Project
Photo: Steven Ablitt / Cassiar WatchVictory: Canada supports public participation and environmental assessment
Thanks to a court ruling to which AIDA and our allies contributed, Canadian authorities must allow active participation in all mining and industrial megaprojects, as well as comprehensive environmental impact assessments.
The decision came after a long legal battle that began in 2006. That year, an open-pit copper and gold mine called Red Chris was approved without the adequate evaluation of its environmental impacts. It was sleighted to process 30 thousand metric tons a day.
The Imperial Metals company intended to build the mine in the Kapplan River Valley, a remote and pristine natural area home to large mammals such as Dali’s sheep, caribou, bears and moose. In addition, the area is part of the migratory salmon route and the Tathlan indigenous community lives nearby.
The company had fragmented the project into small parts to avoid evaluating the full impact of the project, thus violating international standards and the right to public participation.
In 2009 AIDA filed a brief with Canada’s Supreme Court in support of a lawsuit filed against the project by MiningWatch and Ecojustice.
The ruling remains a powerful tool to protect huge expanses of pristine and valuable land for its biodiversity, water sources, and the culture of indigenous communities.
It was a watershed moment in terms of ensuring companies fulfill their obligations when developing projects that put at risk the natural environment and those who depend on it.
Related projects
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. Bucaramanga, Colombia – Today, local groups in Bucaramanga, Colombia filed a complaint against the World Bank Group’s investment in Eco Oro Mineral’s Angostura mining project with the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO), the independent grievance mechanism of the International Finance Corporation (IFC). The complaint cites, among ten main concerns, the IFC’s failure to evaluate the potentially severe and irreversible social and environmental impacts of the project, a 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 Committee for the Defense of Water and the Santurbán Páramo, a coalition of nearly 40 groups living downstream of the project in Bucaramanga, asserts that the IFC, the World Bank’s private-sector lending arm, ignored its own policies before investing US$11.79 million in Greystar Resources – now Eco Oro Minerals – in 2009. The IFC bought shares before the company had completed required environmental and social impact assessments. “There could be some twenty municipalities affected by this project. We think 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, member of the Committee, which includes a diverse group of human rights, environmental, student and business organizations. Following tens of thousands-strong protests and controversial hearings, the Colombian Ministry of the Environment rejected the Vancouver-based company’s initial request for an environmental license, citing the country’s environmental and constitutional 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 support the Committee’s request that the CAO audit the project and recommend a full withdrawal of IFC funds. “The IFC promotes itself as a leader in environmental and social standards,” said Natalia Jiménez Galindo, a lawyer with AIDA. “Its stamp of approval paves the way for other investors. In this case, the IFC did not even ensure minimal protection for communities and the environment by requiring an environmental and social impact assessment.” 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 Santurbán Páramo. “The IFC invested in Eco Oro’s mine, explicitly stating that were it successful it would spur other investments in Colombia’s mining sector. But the IFC did not do its homework to consider the serious environmental, social and economic consequences, particularly in an area that has been a conflict zone,” said Jen Moore, Latin America Program Coordinator for MiningWatch Canada. “It should reevaluate its investment and pull out.” The complaint alleges that the IFC glossed over potential security issues related to Eco Oro’s project. It provides documented evidence of violence associated with guerrilla and paramilitary activity following the establishment of military installations in the area in 2003, which contradicts company claims. 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 department of Santander. In response to the rejection of its 2009 open-pit mine proposal, the company said in 2011 that it would pursue a completely underground mining operation, but the people of Bucaramanga remain widely opposed to the project. The region is thought to contain important deposits of gold, coal and other minerals.
Read more
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)
Read moreBelo Monte Dam controversy to be part of UN’s Review of Brazil’s Human Rights Record
Geneva, Switzerland. On May 25, the United Nations will examine the Brazilian government’s track record for human rights during its Universal Periodic Review (UPR) in Geneva, Switzerland. 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. Many Brazilian and international groups have already sent extensive documentation to the UN highlighting the human rights violations suffered by the indigenous and rural communities in the dam’s path. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights will present information from these and other reports as part of the review or the Brazilian government’s performance on its human rights obligations. Key to the controversy over the dam will be the lack of compliance with an April 2011 resolution from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), an international human rights body of the Organization of American States. The Commission requested that the government halt the project and take steps to protect indigenous communities, including un-contacted tribes in voluntary isolation. Up until now, the Brazilian government has refused to either implement the IACHR’s resolution or dialogue with affected communities in the case. Two civil society reports sent by a coalition of Brazilian and international groups last November highlighted these and other problems with Brazil’s contentious hydroelectric project. The report concludes that the government did not consult with affected communities nor obtain their free, prior, and informed consent, as required by international human rights law. It also documents violations to the rights to life and health, and the possible forced displacement of nearly 40 thousand families. The two reports form part of a growing body of allegations regarding human rights violations related to the Brazilian government’s plans to push the construction of large dams in the Amazon region. “We hope that as a result of the UPR, the Brazilian government will take a hard look at the damage that its energy and hydropower policies are causing for the rights of indigenous and traditional peoples,” stated Astrid Puentes, Co-director of the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), which co-authored the reports. “Brazil has a great opportunity to change its development model toward one that is truly sustainable and respects human rights.” According to Andressa Caldas, Director of the Brazilian human rights NGO, Global Justice, Belo Monte is now synonymous with violations of indigenous peoples’ rights and environmental irresponsibility. “The Brazilian government will have to respond to these allegations and is already expanding its delegation for the UPR with experts specifically to defend the Belo Monte dam. But there is no way to justify such an absurd project.” What is the UPR? The Universal Periodic Review is a proceeding in which all UN nations are reviewed every four years by the UN Human Rights Council, which is made up of representatives from different countries. During the process each country is given the opportunity to demonstrate the steps it has taken to improve the human rights situation and meet its obligations under international law.
Read more