Project
Photo: Thomas Jundt / CC BY-NCVictory: Crucitas gold mine cancelled for environmental harm
In Costa Rica, for the first time, a high-level court cancelled a large-scale mining project for the first time because it violated national laws and threatened the health of the environment. AIDA played an important role in establishing this precedent.
The company, Industrias Infinito, with the support of the previous government, planned to construct an open-pit gold mine in an incredibly biodiverse area near San Juan River, which forms the country’s border with Nicaragua.
The construction and operation of the mine threatened not just the environment but the cultural survival of 32 communities whose way of life depends on tourism and sport fishing in the area.
The fight to stop Crucitas began in 2008 when AIDA warned the Costa Rican government about potential international law violations and environmental impacts that had to be considered before allowing for the project’s implementation. We recommended suspending all work on the project until legal compliance and the protection of the environment and human health were guaranteed.
In November 2010, the Costa Rican Contentious Administrative Court cancelled the project’s concession, reiterating the importance of complying with legal standards when approving projects.
Though the company appealed the ruling, an appeals court later rejected their request and the Crucitas gold mine was cancelled for good.
We congratulate the national NGOs who worked on this case, especially the Environmental and Natural Resources Law Center (CEDARENA), for their tireless efforts in defense of the environment and human rights.
It is our hope that the precedent established in the case will be replicated in nations across Latin America.
Partners:
Related projects
La Oroya: Over a decade’s wait for justice
From the time Isabel* was born, she has breathed toxic air. She’s had heavy metals in her blood for all 13 years of her young life. Her hometown, La Oroya, a small city in the Peruvian Andes, was labeled in 2007 as one of the world’s most polluted places. A metal smelter has been operating there for nearly a century, with little regulation and no attention to human health. Children like Isabel suffer most from toxic pollution. Their developing brains and bodies are terribly vulnerable to lead and other heavy metals, which inhibit growth and often cause permanent damage. Nearly all of La Oroya’s children have heavy metals in their blood, at concentrations many times limits established by the World Health Organization. And many residents suffer from chronic respiratory illness. Their health issues result directly from corporate leaders’ disregard for the environment and for the people who live near the smelter. The State of Peru also bears responsibility for its inaction. That’s why a group of residents joined together to fight for the their children’s health and their city’s future. Isabel’s father, Pablo, has been a vocal leader in the community’s struggle against the government and the US-owned corporation responsible for contaminating their air, their land, even their water. He sees no other way forward. “What kind of world will we leave for our children if we don’t defend our land, if we don’t defend our biodiversity?” he said in a recent interview. A group of 65 residents joined as petitioners in a case AIDA and other organizations brought before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 10 years ago. Since then 14 more have added their names to the complaint; four have died. Today, they still wait for justice. In 2007 the Commission recommended precautionary measures that urged the State to adopt adequate measures to diagnose the beneficiaries and treat those at risk of irreparable damage. Since then, air quality in La Oroya has improved somewhat, but the recommended health system is still woefully inadequate. The Commission has yet to file its report on the merits of the case. A finding of merit would include more forceful recommendations. If the State still doesn’t respond, AIDA will take the case to trial before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. For now, all the petitioners can do is wait some more. Despite the years gone by, we won’t stop fighting until the people of La Oroya see justice. We believe their courage and struggle will have an impact beyond their community, setting a precedent for future cases across the Americas. Because a victory would establish in international law that damages from toxic contamination are human rights violations. And that would mean a brighter future not just for Isabel and La Oroya, but also for communities wherever shortsighted corporations dump their toxic by-products. __ * Name changed to protect privacy.
Read more
Letter to Green Climate Fund Board: Improve Decision Making
Letter signed by 70 international civil society organizations: As members of civil society following the Green Climate Fund (GCF), we are writing to express our concern about the way the Board reached some of its most important decisions during the 14th Board Meeting (B.14). We would also like to share some thoughts on how to improve upon this process in the future. We are especially referring to the practice of “package approval” that was used to approve funding proposals and new accredited entities. Weak process. The Board approved 10 proposals worth $745 million without discussing each one separately. The Board’s assessment of each of the funding proposals should be made individually and with the utmost care, to ensure that the objectives, principles, policies, and operational modalities of the Fund are respected and complied with. Furthermore, there was no opportunity for active observers to highlight individual comments for each of the funding proposals (they could merely air some concerns during the overarching discussion of all funding proposals). The same can be said with regard to the package approval of eight accredited entities. There was no public discussion of the merits and/or shortcomings of each approved applicant entity and no possibility of civil society input. Civil society has vital contributions to make, and for our engagement to be meaningful, active observers must be given the opportunity to share important points regarding each proposal and accreditation application during Board meetings. Indeed, the Board’s way of working has actually been in conflict with the GCF’s own Governing Instrument, which states that “the Fund will operate in a transparent and accountable manner”. Approval despite clear failures of GCF policy compliance. The Board repeatedly overlooked the failure of a number of proposals to comply with GCF policies and procedures. For example, public notification for a number of projects was out of compliance with the Fund’s information disclosure policy, which requires a 120-day notification period for proposals with high social and environmental risk. Mandatory gender action plans were missing from several projects, and stakeholder consultations in some cases were highly inadequate. Yet the Board approved all of the projects with one package decision. The Board even pushed through proposals without the requisite guiding policy in place. For example, programs to be implemented via sub-projects were approved, yet the GCF does not have a policy regarding whether or not high risk sub-projects must come back to the Board for approval. We believe they should, to ensure the GCF’s accountability, and to preempt some of the serious environmental, development, and social shortcomings widely seen at other multilateral institutions that finance sub-projects via financial intermediaries. Precedent-setting. While the Board stated that “the approach taken to approving funding proposals at B.14 does not constitute a precedent,” we are concerned that, at this point, the Board has taken such an approach multiple times. Steps to put a stop to these modalities becoming the de facto modus operandi must be taken in the lead up to B.15, including: Timely public disclosure on the GCF’s own website that, at minimum, follows GCF rules (i.e. 120 days for ESIAs for high risk funding proposals, 30 days for medium risk, and three weeks prior to board meetings for all other materials). All annexes and the Secretariat’s due diligence should also be disclosed for funding proposals; Publication of applications for accreditation as soon as they are filed, as well as operationalization of formal mechanisms for third party input (from affected communities, indigenous peoples, civil society, etc.); Individual consideration of each funding proposal and each applicant for accreditation during public sessions of the Board; Opportunities to consider civil society interventions during the debate on each individual proposal, rather than at the end of agenda items; Where formal (or informal) working groups are established to consider conditions to be placed on proposals, there should be a clear process to allow the consideration of civil society feedback, at a minimum in writing, but preferably through the direct participation of the CSO active observers or their alternates; Discussions on more complex and/or controversial proposals require several rounds of debate. In these cases, civil society observers should be given the opportunity to make further interventions responding to new proposals, conditions and amendments. Civil society observers are committed to working with the Board to improve the accountability and transparency of Board decisions, in particular on funding and accreditation approvals. As a learning institution, the GCF needs to take the time to look at the merits of individual proposals and applicants in order to clearly elaborate how they can support the paradigm shift in recipient countries. We therefore urge the Board to better prioritize valuable time during the upcoming Board meetings to allow for meaningful discussions.
Read more
In the Hamlet of Mïratu, the Juruna mourn the death of Jarliel
By Marcelo Salazar, Instituto Socioambiental (ISA) AIDA translation of a blog originally published by ISA Jarliel died while diving for fish in water 25 meters deep. One of his brothers blames the Belo Monte Dam, which pushed all the fish into deeper waters, forcing fishermen to follow. Before the dam, fish were plentiful in the waterfalls and shallows of the river. Jarliel Juruna, known as Jarla, died on October 26, 2016 while diving for brown acari, a common Amazonian catfish. He was 20 years old. Jarliel was roughly 25 meters deep when he stopped breathing; his lifeless body floated to the surface. It was a tragedy for Mïratu, in the Paquiçamba indigenous territory; it was a tragedy for the Juruna people* of the Volta Grande; and it was a tragedy for the Xingu River, in the Brazilian Amazon. He left his parents, siblings, wife, and newborn son, all in shock. They had no idea where to go or what to do next. In near total silence, Giliarde Juruna, chief of Mïratu and one of Jarliel’s brothers, kept his gaze fixed on the forest behind the straw house that holds the community kitchen. Another brother, Jair Juruna, known as Negão, was outraged: "We’ve never had to fish acari in such deep waters. But because of the dam, the fish that have always been right here, in the waterfalls and in the shallows, have disappeared. And we have families to support. Norte Energía [the dam-building consortium] is playing with our lives. Where are the productive projects? If things were working, we would have other jobs and we wouldn’t need to risk our lives to support our families. Now look what’s happened." On the other side of the continent, Bel Juruna was in Peru representing her people in a meeting of Latin American indigenous leaders. She was speaking about the violence that the Belo Monte operators brought to her community and the people of the Xingu. When she heard the news, she was devastated. She wasn’t able get home in time to attend Jarliel’s burial; to say goodbye to her youngest brother, whom she had helped to raise. Jarla was a happy and playful young man, dedicated, completing his high school degree and dreaming of college. He was one of his village’s fighters, present in many of the peaceful occupations of the Belo Monte Dam complex, fighting for the rights of the indigenous people of the Xingu. One day, the full story behind Belo Monte will be told. The very real impacts the dam has had on the life of the people of the Xingu will be recognized. May Jarla now join the great Mïratu fighters on another plane—and unite his efforts with those who remain on Earth to fight against Belo Monte and against other forms of destruction of the indigenous and traditional communities of the Xingu. *Proprietors of the River The Yudja, or Juruna (as they’re know in the region), live on the islands and banks of the Xingu. They are known as “proprietors of the river” for their great ancestral knowledge of its flow, and for having migrated for centuries from the mouth of the Xingu to its headwaters. Mïratu, one of the villages in Paquiçamba indigenous territory, sits roughly 10 km below one of Belo Monte’s reservoirs. The hamlet suffers various impacts from the dam, including changes in their traditional fisheries. In collaboration with (the?) Universidad Federal do Pará and ISA, and with the support of the Mott Foundation, the Juruna people are engaged in independent monitoring of their fisheries, which reveals the damages suffered in recent years. Jariel was one of the monitors in Mïratu.
Read more