Project

Victory: Haven for leatherback sea turtles declared off-limits

In two separate rulings in May 2008, the Costa Rican government stood up for endangered leatherback sea turtles against business interests intent on building within their protected habitat.

A relative of dinosaurs, the endangered leatherback sea turtle has continually found its home in Costa Rica under threat. Poor planning and lack of oversight destroyed its nesting beaches in Flamingo and Tamarindo.

This time developers had their eye on the Leatherback National Marine Park (LNMP), home to some of the most important Leatherback nesting beaches in the Eastern Pacific Ocean.

A municipal zoning regulation was enacted that would authorize construction in part of the LNMP. However, AIDA and its local partner CEDARENA, together with the Leatherback Trust, successfully defended the park.

The Constitutional Chamber of the Costa Rican Supreme Court nullified the municipal zoning regulation, safeguarding the Leatherback sea turtles and their nesting beaches. This ruling closely followed another court victory by AIDA, CEDARENA, and Justice for Nature that required the government to expropriate the private lands within the LNMP, otherwise destined to be tourist playgrounds.

The leatherback sea turtle will continue to face threats from tourism development, fishing, egg poaching, and pollution. However, AIDA and its partners have shown that the law can be used to make a powerful difference.

Related projects

Protecting the rich marine life of Cabo Pulmo Reef

Defending Mexico's marine biodiversity from deep sea mining

Defending the Veracruz Reef from a port expansion project

Protecting Patagonian Seas from Salmon Farms

Protecting herbivorous fish, to secure a future for corals

Towards an end to subsidies that promote overfishing

June 04 2012

Latest News

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)

May 25 2012 Large Dams, Freshwater Sources, Human Rights

Latest News

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.

May 07 2012

Latest News

By Héctor Herrera, legal advisor, AIDA, @RJAColombia Colombia’s ethnic groups have decrees and laws that protect their cultural persity, that defend the individual and collective livelihood of these native and traditional peoples and communities. Article 6 of Convention No. 169 of the International Labour Organization (ILO) stipulates that indigenous peoples have the right to prior consultation. That means that they should participate in defining the measures that could have a direct impact on them, whether legislative (such as laws or decrees) or administrative (environmental permits for highways, dams, mines, oil wells, and the like). The negotiations should be carried out in good faith and with the goal of reaching agreements on all sides. This has become very important in Colombia, a multiethnic, multicultural, and diverse country. According to the Luis Ángel Arango Library, 65 indigenous languages in 12 language families are spoken in Colombia, of which 34 have less than one thousand speakers. Traditional Afro groups speak two different Creole languages. Yet all of these languages are in danger. Colombia also is extremely diverse in biological species globally, ranking first in birds, second in amphibians and butterflies, third in reptiles, and fourth in mammals, according to the Humboldt Institute. Colombian newspaper El Espectador reported 2011 data showing that 10% of all biodiversity is found on 1% of the planet’s surface. In Columbia, 29.8% of this is collective indigenous territory and 5% is collective traditional Afro territory. Understanding this, prior consultation emerges as an opportunity to protect the cultural and ethnic persity of Colombia and defend the inpidual and collective livelihood of the many native and traditional peoples and communities. It is, too, an opportunity to protect the ecosystems that these ethnic groups inhabit as well as to protect life in all its forms. This does not mean forcing anybody to adopt a conservation, extractive, or development model. It simply means making sure that an effective space is provided for clear, honest, and intercultural dialogue with ethnic groups on measures that could affect them, whether legislative or administrative measures or national laws or extractive mining projects. This is completely in line with the stipulations of Article 6 of Convention No. 169 of the ILO . This right has also been recognized in numerous national and international legal documents. On the international level, we have the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted in 2007 (PDF file). In Colombia, we have the Political Constitution, which protects the rights of ethnic groups to their collective territory and the rights of all of society to a healthy environment. With the backing of international legal documents and the Political Constitution, the Constitutional Court of Colombia upheld the right to prior consultation for the “Embera indigenous people” in relation to the construction of the Urrá dam in 1998 and for Amazon indigenous peoples on the fumigation of illegal crops in 2003. In other cases, the High Court declared unconstitutional the National Development Plan of 2006-2010, the forestry law of 2006 and the mining code reform of 2010 because the proponents had not consulted with ethnic groups. There are yet more cases outside Colombia, such as Bolivia with the Multinational Constitution of 2009 and Ecuador with the Intercultural and Multinational Constitution of 1998, both of which recognize the right to prior consultation. So too Peru, where a law on this right was just passed this year. Culture, language and a view of the world – all of these can live on through time if we respect them and guarantee people’s rights, including the right to prior consultation. The protection of this right could also contribute to the protection of important ecosystems and of biological persity, both of which are vital issues as we face unprecedented climate change and environmental degradation.