Project
Victory: Ecuador’s High Court Orders Halt to Contamination from Palm Oil Production
Palm oil plantations are threatening the biodiversity of Chocó, an ancient forest in Ecuador. The companies managing these plantations have caused massive destruction to the forest, endangering rare species and displacing local farmers with near impunity. In September 2007, the Constitutional Court ordered remediation and accountability for the damage.
The order came a year after AIDA teamed up with its Ecuadorean partner, ECOLEX, to document and shed light on the negative impacts of palm oil cultivation in Ecuador. The waste from the plantations, including pesticides and dangerous chemicals, contaminated nearby rivers and waterways. This harmed fish and plants and significantly affected the health and livelihoods of local communities.
The evidence was compelling enough to lead ECOLEX in September 2006 to file a constitutional suit against the Ministry of the Environment and plantation owners to protect the human right to a healthy environment. AIDA supported ECOLEX’s legal action with arguments from international environmental law.
The following year, the Constitutional Court (the highest court in Ecuador) ordered the Ministry to remediate the damages caused by the palm oil plantations and take measures to control and mitigate future potential harms.
Shortly after, the Ministry filed an appeal. But the appeal was not successful, and the Constitutional Court reinforced its original decision.
The decision is an important victory for those who suffered from the irresponsible palm oil cultivation in Ecuador. More importantly, the high court set a legal precedent that can be used by lower Ecuadorean courts in deciding environmental cases. With the victory, AIDA will be looking for more opportunities to protect Ecuador’s natural bounty.
Related projects
Still Waiting for Justice in La Oroya
Part 1 of a 2-Part Series on the Human Rights Situation in La Oroya, Peru. By María José Veramendi Villa Juana[1] is tired. She and her neighbors have been waiting eight years for a ruling; eight years for a decision that could better their lives, clean their air, attend to their sick children and families. What began as a courageous and hopeful quest for justice has become a discouraging waiting game. Since 2007, a group of residents in La Oroya, Peru, has acted as petitioner in a case before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Community of La Oroya v. Peru. For nearly a century, their city has been contaminated by the operation of a metallurgical complex (smelter) within its borders. The smelter has blackened the air, poisoned their bodies, and released toxic chemicals into the land and water. La Oroya was once identified as one of the most polluted cities in the world. The severe contamination has, and continues to have, grave impacts on the health of the city’s residents. Realities of La Oroya When AIDA’s co-executive director Anna Cederstav first arrived in La Oroya in 1997, women were walking around with scarves covering their faces, a vain attempt to ease the pain of breathing. Juana explained that she had felt the steady burning in her eyes and throat—the effects of contamination—since she could remember, but didn’t pay it any mind. Like most of the population, she thought it was normal. She didn’t really know what clean air was because she’d never experienced it. AIDA has worked for nearly two decades with the community of La Oroya. In 2002, we published the report La Oroya Cannot Wait with the Peruvian Society for Environmental Law. That report began to reveal to the community the severity of the pollution and health risks they were facing on a daily basis. The community realized they had to do something. Juana said it was in 2003, more than 80 years after the smelter began operating, that she became aware of the contamination. Through work with her parish, she was able to access information and learn about what was happening in her city. From there, she connected the dots—the respiratory problems in her family were, in fact, a result of her city’s extreme contamination. The quest for justice Residents submitted their case before the Inter-American Commission after their attempts at justice within Peru produced no remedy. A 2006 ruling by Peru’s Constitutional Tribunal against the State ordered it to adopt measures to protect the health of the community, but the State took no such action. In 2007, the Commission urged the Peruvian state to carry out precautionary measures—a specialized diagnosis of 65 residents and treatment for those who showed irreversible damage to their lives or personal integrity. Juana said receiving news of the precautionary measures was a happy moment because “we knew that we were winning something. At the beginning, everything went well and we believed that everything would be fixed, (but) with the passing of months—years—there were no answers.” Then, in 2009, the Commission issued a report admitting AIDA’s petition, declaring that the State’s omissions in the face of pollution could, if proven, represent human rights violations. But still, nearly a decade after the petition was first filed, the victims await a decision, the precautionary measures have yet to be enforced, and the State’s responsibility for the acts have yet to be established. “It’s taking a really long time, and not all of us have the patience or desire to keep waiting,” Juana said. Time affects the victims, wearing them out until they begin to waver and give up fighting for their right to justice. They become even more vulnerable as they face a city hostile to anyone who fights for their rights to life and health, a state that denies its responsibility and looks for any excuse to avoid assuming responsibility, and a company that wants to polish its reputation and use its economic power to manipulate the government. Where is the law in these cases? Where is justice? Juana explained that leaving La Oroya would be impossible for her family, because there they have work. She remains committed to achieving change with the lawsuit. But that’s not the case for everyone. La Oroya contains thousands of stories of families whose lives were radically changed due to the city’s contamination and the subsequent damages to their health and lives. There are those who had to abandon their homes because they did not see a future in the city, and those who have been unable to leave La Oroya because their entire lives and family are there. Then there are those who have suffered painful attacks and insults from their own neighbors in a community worried about losing jobs, but who march forward with the conviction that, one day, change will come and La Oroya will be a better and fairer place for them, their children, and their grandchildren. I trust and hope that the law will deliver justice to salvage those years of waiting. [1] The name has been changed to protect the client. This blog is based on a longer article Maria José wrote on the case entitled La Oroya: A Painful Wait for Justice. It was published as Chapter 8 of DeJusticia’s book, Human Rights in Minefields: Extractive Economies, Environmental Conflicts and Social Justice in the Global South. Read the full account here.
Read more
Reducing Short-Lived Climate Pollutants: A life jacket in times of climate change
By Florencia Ortuzar, AIDA attorney They’re all around you – the air conditioner hanging from your neighbor’s window, the charcoal powering your grill, the black smoke pillowing out of a passing truck, even the cows dotting the fields outside town. These familiar aspects of our daily lives are just some of the sources of short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs). When released, SLCPs warm our atmosphere. But, compared to carbon dioxide, they have a relatively short lifespan. Consequently, their effective mitigation could provide a life jacket on the troubled waters of climate change. That’s why SCLPs are worth considering as the world moves rapidly toward the new global climate accord to be signed at the 21st Conference of Parties (COP21) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The meeting in Paris this December will be the most important in the global climate negotiations thus far. The new accord it produces could help us out of the planetary dilemma we’re currently in. The task is difficult. There have been 20 conferences of the UNFCCC so far, none of which has made substantial progress. Emissions have increased each year since the convention began, except for 2008 and 2009, when they decreased due the global economic crisis (not, notably, due to human will to survive). Sometimes, it’s hard to keep hope alive, but at AIDA, we never lose it. What are SLCPs? These contaminants include black carbon, tropospheric ozone, methane and hydroflourocarbons (HFC). Each one of them is different, but they share two main characteristics: they are major contributors to global warming, and, once emitted, they remain in the atmosphere briefly. The second feature is the one to which we must draw attention if we seek to mitigate climate change in the short term. Unlike SLCPs, carbon dioxide (CO2) can remain in the air for centuries. That means that even if we stopped all emissions today, the CO2 emitted would continue to warm the atmosphere for a very long time. How big of a problem are they? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has estimated that SLCPs are responsible for more than 30 percent of global warming. More recent studies estimate between 40 and 45 percent. Mitigating carbon dioxide, responsible for the majority of the greenhouse effect, is essential to maintaining the climatic equilibrium of the earth in the long term. But the opportunity offered through the mitigation of SLCPs is much more immediate, and its effects could be felt in our daily lives. Advantages of reducing SLCPs The desirability of reducing SLCPs is much greater if we consider that, in addition to heating the atmosphere, these contaminants cause other problems that directly affect human health and the natural environment. Black carbon and tropospheric ozone, for example, are the cause of millions of premature deaths each year, since they increase the risk of respiratory and heart disease. They also damage crop yields, so their control would help improve food security worldwide. What does the Convention say? The Convention and its Kyoto Protocol do not recognize SLCPs as a concept, although the Protocol does include methane and HFCs in the greenhouse gases it seeks to combat. But this lack of recognition may change with the new climate accord. The current agreement includes a list of specific polluting gases that States must reduce. With the new agreement, however, countries will be free to decide what to include in their gas mitigation targets. Mexico has become a notable example in this regard by unconditionally committing, through its Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), to reduce black carbon by 51 percent by 2030. This percentage has the potential to rise to 70 percent with international assistance. The work at hand At AIDA we work to inform governments of the measures they could take to effectively reduce short-lived climate pollutants in their countries. We advocate for the adoption of solutions whose effectiveness has already been tested in various parts of the world. We are preparing a report that reviews current regulation of these pollutants in three Latin American countries: Brazil, Chile and Mexico. We hope this report will facilitate progress towards a better approach to SLCPs in these countries. We will then continue working on this important issue in the rest of the region. You can find more information about SLCPs HERE!
Read more
NGOs testify before IACHR regarding violation of the right to water by extractive activities
In a hearing before the Commission, advocates explained how extractive activities, especially mining and energy projects, restrict individual and community water use. They also documented the failure of states to protect the right to water and effectively control companies and projects that affect this right. Washington, DC, United States. Civil society organizations[i] drew the attention of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) to the growing pressure to use natural resources for the development of extractive activities in the Americas, including the construction of dams and mining projects. They did so at a hearing in which they showed how this situation has resulted in the systematic violation of the right to water in the region. "We have identified four patterns that characterize this problem: the use of judicial frameworks that favor the appropriation of water resources for extractive projects, ownership of the resource that favor its use for mining projects over human use and consumption, pollution and deterioration of water sources, and the lack of consultation and free, prior and informed consent in the implementation of these projects," explained Maria José Veramendi Villa, lawyer from the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense, at the beginning of the hearing. The organizations presented cases of appropriation, pollution and irreversible damage to water sources due to the implementation of extractive projects. This situation not only affects water rights but also infringes upon other rights such as health, decent life, integrity, healthy environment, food and culture. The participating organizations noted the impacts both on individuals and communities that are in areas directly influenced by projects for which there was no prior consultation, as well as for those who are outside of the immediate project area but depend on affected water sources for their livelihood. Such cases have been documented extensively in a report that was delivered to the IACHR. "In Argentina, the exploitation of the Alumbrera mine has caused the leakage of toxic waste into three rivers and, although a court case on the pollution is open, measures to effectively remediate the damage have yet to be taken. We are concerned that none of our countries are implementing plans to prevent additional damage, nor are they taking measures to remediate the cumulative damage from the pollution," said Johana Rocha, of the Centro de Estudios para la Justicia Social “Tierra Digna” of Colombia. The hearing before the IACHR highlighted the failure of States in the region to implement effective measures to ensure the right to water. The participating organizations reported that existing legal frameworks favor the appropriation of water for mining projects over the use and human consumption. They also explained the failure of national mechanisms to control and monitor the performance of companies that implement extractive projects - a situation which allows them to continue to commit gross violations of human rights. "We have found a contradiction in the States' obligations to protect and guarantee the right to water, which has been incorporated into their Constitutions and legislation. They instead give preference to corporations, thus denying the right to water of the communities," stated Pedro Landa, of the Equipo de Reflexión, Investigación y Comunicación de la Compañía de Jesús (ERIC-SJ) of Honduras. Raphaela Lopes, of Justiça Global, spoke of the easing of legal frameworks, which violates human rights. "With the energy reform recently approved in Mexico, for example, the right to water is undermined in favor of hydrocarbons and electricity." Lastly, the organizations asked the IACHR, among other things, to reaffirm at a national level the recognition of water as a human right; to consider the importance of water as a fundamental element to the right to a healthy environment; to remind States of their obligations to protect the rights to water and environment above any extractive activity or infrastructure; to highlight the obligation of the states to effectively control the activities that could affect the right to water, including the companies that operate within their territory and the national companies that operate externally; and to remind states of the importance of the right to free, and prior, informed consent before the implementation of any project. [i] Acción Solidaria para el Desarrollo (COOPERACCIÓN) – Perú, Asociación Interamericana para la Defensa del Ambiente (AIDA) – Regional, Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos (APRODEH) – Perú, Bienaventurados los Pobres (BePe) - Colectivo SumajKawsay – Argentina, Centro de Acción Legal Ambiental y Social (CALAS) – Guatemala, Centro de Derechos Humanos “Bartolomé Carrasco Briseño A.C.” (BARCA-DH) – México, Centro de Estudios para la Justicia Social ‘Tierra Digna’ – Colombia, Centro de Incidencia Ambiental (CIAM) – Panamá, Centro de Investigación sobre Desarrollo y Comercio (CEICOM) – El Salvador, Comité de Unidad Campesina (CUC) – Guatemala, Comitê Nacional em Defesa dos Territórios frente a Mineração – Brasil, Equipo de Reflexión, Investigación y Comunicación de la Compañía de Jesús (ERIC-SJ) – Honduras, Fundación para el Debido Proceso Legal (DPLF) – Regional, Grupo Internacional de Trabajo sobre Asuntos Indígenas (IWGIA) – Regional, Justiça Global – Brasil, Observatorio Ciudadano – Chile, Pensamiento y Acción Social (PAS) – Colombia, y Pax Christi – Internacional.
Read more