Press Center

March 11 2010

Environmental Organizations Denounce Flaws and Impacts of the Costa del Pacifico (CIP) Mega-Resort at a Public Hearing (Spanish only)

PARA PUBLICACIÓN INMEDIATA: CEMDA, WildCoast, Conselva, Greenpeace, AIDA DENUNCIAN ORGANIZACIONES AMBIENTALES IRREGULARIDADES E IMPACTOS DEL PROYECTO CIP ESCUINAPA, DURANTE LA REUNIÓN DE INFORMACIÓN *Manifestación de impacto ambiental presentada de manera fragmentada, sólo es por 93 de las 2,600 hectáreas que abarca el proyecto *Preocupa a pescadores y ONG grave impacto a la actividad pesquera de la región *El proyecto no considera de manera adecuada la planeación de servicios básicos como el agua, y podría poner en riesgo los recursos hídricos de la región La Paz, BCS a 9 de marzo, 2010 - Durante la Reunión de Información realizada por la Unidad Coordinadora de Participación Social y Transparencia (UAST) de la Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (Semarnat), varias organizaciones ambientalistas denunciaron nuevamente las irregularidades e impactos no contemplados en el proyecto “Infraestructura Básica del predio CIP Escuinapa, Sinaloa” promovido por el Fondo Nacional de Fomento al Turismo (FONATUR). La Manifestación de Impacto Ambiental (MIA) del proyecto se presentó de manera fragmentada, presentando análisis de impactos individuales en lugar de manera integral. Esto minimiza los graves impactos socio-ambientales del Proyecto en su conjunto, pues la MIA presentada solamente abarca 93.48 hectáreas, de las 2,600 hectáreas que comprende el Proyecto. El Centro Integralmente Planeado (CIP) Escuinapa es uno de los proyectos más ambiciosos del actual gobierno y estará ubicado al sur de Sinaloa, dentro de Marismas Nacionales. De acuerdo con Sofía Cortina, abogada de AIDA, “El CIP se construiría alrededor de una de las zonas de humedales más prioritarias para la conservación a nivel internacional, lo que ocasionará un severo desgaste ecológico a la región y un alto impacto a la actividad pesquera en el noroeste del país”. El Proyecto contempla una capacidad de 44,200 habitaciones, 4 campos de golf, 2 marinas, un malecón marítimo del palmar, paseo de los lagos interiores, ramblas comerciales y de entretenimiento, y otros servicios. Entre otras omisiones legales, las organizaciones destacaron las observaciones y comentarios que se han generado acerca de la MIA. A pesar que se invertirían 200 millones de pesos para estudios en materia ambiental para este proyecto (según manifestó FONATUR en una presentación del proyecto en la página1 del municipio de Escuinapa) “la evaluación del proyecto está fragmentada y no se expone la totalidad de los impactos ambientales que el CIP causaría” puntualizó Cortina. La MIA no incluyó estudios detallados sobre los impactos a especies endémicas como reptiles, peces, moluscos y sobretodo, acerca de las más de 250 especies de aves, como es obligación de acuerdo con la NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2003. A la lista de omisiones, se suma que en la MIA no se señala una planeación detallada para la provisión de los servicios básicos como son el agua y la recolección de desechos sólidos, siendo este último un grave problema actual para el municipio Escuinapa ya que no cuenta con un relleno sanitario. Adicionalmente, “no se propusieron las medidas de mitigación adecuadas basadas en los criterios de la Convención Ramsar, tratado internacional para la conservación y uso racional de los humedales y sus recursos, de la cual México forma parte y es uno de los países con mayor número de humedales registrados, incluyendo Marismas Nacionales”, comentó Sandra Moguel, abogada del Centro Mexicano de Derecho Ambiental. “Este ecosistema cuenta con un valor especial para la preservación de la diversidad genética y ecológica de la región, es reconocida como hábitat del jaguar, representa alrededor del 10% del total de manglares en México y más de 90 especies de fauna de las cuales 73 se encuentran amenazadas o en peligro de extinción, y es el hábitat de una población de 20,000 aves acuáticas y refugio invernal para más de 100,000 aves acuáticas migratorias”, continuó Moguel. El CEMDA y la Asociación Interamericana para la Defensa del Ambiente (AIDA), junto con Greenpeace México, Wildcoast, Conselva y Red Manglar, presentaron en abril del 2009, una petición al Secretariado Ramsar informando del incumplimiento del Gobierno Federal en su compromiso como integrante de la Convención, de proteger los humedales mexicanos enlistados en Ramsar. Al igual que Marismas Nacionales, la laguna Huizache-Caimanero, ubicada en el municipio de Rosario, Sinaloa, es un sitio Ramsar de gran importancia para la actividad pesquera de la región y el cual es amenazado a la vez por cuatro proyectos de alto impacto. Actualmente se espera la visita de una misión de verificación internacional. Tanto pescadores de Sinaloa y Nayarit, como ONG y pobladores, han manifestado su preocupación por una posible resolución a favor del desarrollo del CIP en Escuinapa, debido a que temen la afectación a los ingresos económicos de la actividad pesquera de los lugareños por los impactos sobre el ecosistema que hasta ahora es regulada en gran parte por la existencia de los humedales y manglares de Marismas Nacionales. Por último Moguel señaló de gran importancia, la participación de las organizaciones ambientales en la Reunión Pública de Información, como ejercicio de involucramiento público en la evaluación de impacto ambiental, para el empoderamiento de la ciudadanía en la toma de decisiones respecto al uso y aprovechamiento de sus recursos naturales. PARA MAYOR INFORMACIÓN AR: Claudia Gómez-Portugal M. Directora de Comunicación 01 (55) 55256136 / 01 (55) 52863323 [email protected] Sofìa Cortina Segovia Asesora Legal 01 (612) 1221369 [email protected]

January 26 2010

Canadian Supreme Court prohibits project splitting and guarantees public participation in environmental assessments (Spanish text only)

PARA PUBLICACIÓN INMEDIATA: O: Jacob Kopas: [email protected] Teléfonos: (+57) 1-338-1277 / 320-316-0379 Corte Suprema de Canadá prohíbe fragmentar proyectos mineros y rectifica la obligatoriedad de evaluaciones de impacto ambiental integrales y con participación pública Ottawa, Canadá - En un cambio jurisprudencial fundamental, el 21 de enero la Corte Suprema de Canadá determinó que los grandes proyectos mineros están obligados a tener una evaluación de impacto ambiental comprehensiva, sin fragmentar el proyecto, y que garantice la participación pública. La sentencia concluye que las autoridades canadienses, al realizar la evaluación ambiental del proyecto minero Red Chris (un inmenso proyecto minero de oro y cobre a cielo abierto), lo fragmentaron ilegalmente impidiendo así conocer el verdadero impacto ambiental de la obra. “Celebramos enormemente esta decisión de la Corte Suprema de Canadá, que debería ser replicada por los gobiernos y las empresas mineras, especialmente las canadienses, con grandes intereses en la región”, dijo Jacob Kopas, abogado de la Asociación Interamericana para la Defensa del Ambiente (AIDA). AIDA, CELA y varias organizaciones presentaron un escrito ante la Corte, apoyando la demanda presentada por Ecojustice y otros grupos ambientalistas, resaltando entre otros, que la autorización de este proyecto también desconoce el derecho internacional ambiental. El proyecto “Red Chris” procesaría 30,000 toneladas métricas de mineral al día y arrojaría los desechos tóxicos en un área remota y prístina de la provincia de Columbia Británica, Canadá, habitada por grandes mamíferos y que es un importante sitio para la reproducción de salmón. Ante los posibles riesgos irreparables que esta mina a cielo abierto implica para esta área y sus pobladores, una evaluación comprehensiva es sin duda, un requisito esencial antes de autorizarlo. El máximo tribunal canadiense concluyó que el gobierno federal violó las normas aplicables al autorizar este proyecto de manera fragmentada, y también al impedir la participación pública activa de las comunidades y los grupos locales en la evaluación de impactos ambientales para grandes proyectos, como la minería. Estos dos elementos son esenciales dado que proyectos como la mina Red Chris no sólo interesan a los inversionistas y al gobierno, sino también a todas las comunidades locales que de múltiples maneras tienen un interés en las áreas a afectarse. “En el hemisferio hemos sido testigos de innumerables proyectos con inmensos impactos ambientales y sociales, que desafortunadamente se presentan y evalúan por partes, las minas a cielo abierto son un ejemplo reiterado, por lo que esta sentencia es vital para la región”, dijo Astrid Puentes, Co-Directora de AIDA. “Además, la decisión de la Corte está de acuerdo con normas ambientales internacionales, contribuye a prevenir daños ambientales irreparables y respeta el derecho humano a la participación pública, constituyéndose en un gran ejemplo a seguir”. ## Para mayor información ir a: www.aida-americas.parainforma.com Enlace de información de otras organizaciones: www.ecojustice.ca; www.cela.ca

November 05 2009 Climate Change, Human Rights, Indigenous Rights, Large Dams

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Examines Impacts of Large Dams in Latin America

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Examines Impacts of Large Dams in Latin America Washington, D.C. - On November 2, 2009 the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights will hold a hearing on the impacts that large dams in Latin America have on human rights and the environment. Dam-affected peoples and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) will present information showing that Latin-American governments are building dams at great social, environmental and economic costs, often disregarding national and international laws and violating human rights. “More than a million people have already been affected by large dams in Latin America, many of whom are from indigenous and small farming communities,” said Rafael González, Board Member of the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). “More than 300 new dams are being planned throughout the region, which could destroy the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of people and harm precious ecosystems.” The over 40 national and international NGOs requesting this hearing will present findings from AIDA’s forthcoming publication, Large Dams in the Americas: Is the Cure Worse than the Disease?, to the IACHR documenting the poor track record of dam construction in the hemisphere. They will also encourage the Inter-American Commission to make recommendations to member States on how to avoid major environmental damages and human rights violations. “The granting of this hearing by the IACHR is a positive demonstration of their interest in examining the link between large dams and human rights violations,” said Astrid Puentes co-Director of AIDA. “We hope that the IACHR will begin an investigation and recommend that States strictly enforce international standards and human rights law, to avoid major environmental impacts and human rights tragedies.” The human rights impacts of large dams are numerous. Affected communities and stakeholders—mostly indigenous, fishing and farming communities—rarely have the opportunity to participate in decisions on dam developments, and frequently are subjected to intimidation, harassment and even military actions when they oppose projects. Families displaced by large dams often receive inadequate or no compensation. Equally troubling are poorly developed resettlement plans that do not for lost livelihoods or lack of access to medical attention, fishing areas and farming land, leaving families worse off as a result. Large dams have also had profound environmental impacts. Enormous reservoirs inundate biodiverse wildlife habitats and fertile farmlands. Dams and river diversions also harm fish populations, and are the main cause for the extinction or endangerment of one-third of the world’s freshwater fish species. “We are not against development.” said Father Gabriel Espinoza, spokesperson for communities affected by the El Zapotillo dam in Mexico, and who will speak before the Inter-American Commission. “We understand that a country’s needs for energy and water should be met as a fundamental right of all peoples.” “But governments cannot proceed without consulting and providing information for local communities, according to national and international law. That would violate our fundamental freedoms and disrespect our lives, history, culture and livelihoods.” “There are often better, cheaper, and less-destructive alternatives to building a large dam, whether to meet energy or water needs, or to reduce the impacts from floods,” said Monti Aguirre of International Rivers. “Small-scale, decentralized water supplies and new renewable energy sources, as well as large-scale efficiency and conservation plans are only some of the options available. Unfortunately, governments and corporations frequently ignore these choices or dismiss them out-of-hand when a large dam project is on the table.” The World Commission on Dams, in its ground-breaking report on large dams, Dams and Development, recommends using a comprehensive, participatory process to evaluate needs for water and energy and to assess the full range of available options. The hearing is open to the public and will take place on November 2, 2009, from 5:30 to 6:15 p.m., Room Rubén Darío, 8th Floor of the OAS General Secretariat Building, 1889 F Street NW, Washington, D.C. Guidelines for press coverage of public hearings at http://www.cidh.org/Prensa/guidelinespresscoverageENGL.htm. Opportunities for interviews with presenters after the hearing. For more information on large dams in the Americas: International Rivers, Redlar

August 19 2009 Toxic Pollution, Human Rights

Inter-American Commission its case on human rights violations in La Oroya

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 19, 2009 IACHR Will Examine Case Against Peru for Violating the Human Rights of Residents of La Oroya, A City Extensively Contaminated by the Doe Run Peru Smelter ► According to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States, Peru may be violating the rights to life, personal integrity, and to information and access to justice, due to toxic pollution from Doe Run Peru’s multi-metal smelter in La Oroya, Peru. ► The potential extension of an environmental management plan for the complex, announced by Peruvian President Garcia, must include effective measures to guarantee against further human rights violations. WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) will examine a complaint against Peru for human rights violations in La Oroya, a Peruvian town described as one of the “most contaminated places on earth.” AIDA, Earthjustice and CEDHA submitted this case in 2006 with the local of the Peruvian Society for Environmental Law (SPDA). In the Inter-American Commission’s recent report accepting the case, it “considers that the alleged deaths and/or health effects of the presumed victims are a consequence of acts and omissions by the State with regard to environmental pollution arising from the multi-metal complex operating in La Oroya, which if proved could constitute a violation of the rights conferred in Articles 4 [life] and 5 [personal integrity] of the American Convention.” “This claim stems from the lack of action by Peru, considering that the government has known about the impacts of the pollution on persons and the environment for at least ten years without acting to resolve the contamination problem,” states AIDA Co-Director, Astrid Puentes. “Even if some steps have been taken in La Oroya, the measures implemented have not been effective in safeguarding health and the environment, as noted by the Peruvian Constitutional Court, the Ministry of Health, and the Commission.” “This is excellent news that brings us hope that things will finally improve in La Oroya” said one of the case’s plaintiffs, whose names are confidential. In 2006 the Constitutional Court of Peru ordered actions to protect public health in the city. The “unjustified delay” in complying with this order may also constitute a violation of the human rights of access to justice and judicial guarantees. The Commission will also investigate whether Peru’s actions violate the right to access to information and freedom of expression. In addition to serious health effects, this case alleges unjustifiable limits to accessing information about the community’s environmental and human health situation and pressure toward those trying to distribute this information. The IACHR’s decision to examine the complaint coincides with negotiations between the Peruvian Government and the Doe Run Peru company, owner of the Multi-Metal Complex, over a potential extension for the complex’s Environmental Management Plan (PAMA). The effective implementation of this plan would improve environmental quality in the area. There is little certainty whether the company will ever meet its obligations for environmental controls under this Plan, as the government has already granted several extensions. The Commission will likely monitor the compliance process and consider the results in any final decision regarding the violations of human rights in Peru. The PAMA does not actually allow for extensions, and the government could fine the company for violating the Plan. If Peru does not impose fines, it would further prolong the unjustified delay of actions necessary to control the pollution in La Oroya and protect the human rights of its inhabitants,” states José Luis Capella, of SPDA. “Any future decision regarding the PAMA must include effective measures to enforce the obligations to improve health and the environment in the city already contained within the Plan.” Connected with this case, the IACHR also requested in 2007 that Peru implement urgent precautionary measures to guarantee the life and safety of La Oroya residents. These measures insist that Peru provide specialized medical evaluations and treatment for those affected by the toxic pollution. “The IACHR’s acceptance of this case is vital to protect human rights in La Oroya. It demonstrates that the severe pollution in the city has an impact, not only on the environment, but on human health, and that it affects their human rights,” stated Martin Wagner Director of the International Program of Earthjustice. “We hope the case has positive impact on the protection of human rights in La Oroya and in the region."

May 20 2009

Costa Rican Constitutional Chamber Orders the Fisheries Authority to Issue Regulations Within the Next 3 Months

PRESS : Gladys Martínez de Lemos, AIDA (506) 83214263 [email protected] Costa Rican Constitutional Chamber Orders the Fisheries Authority to Issue Regulations Within the Next 3 Months SAN JOSÉ, Costa Rica, May 20, 2009 – The Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Costa Rica favorably resolved an injunction brought by students from the University of Costa Rica, represented by Attorney Alvaro Sagot and ed by the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) and other Costa Rican NGOs (APREFLOFAS, CEDARENA, Fundación Keto, Humane Society International, Justicia para la Naturaleza, MARVIVA, PRETOMA and PROMAR)., In its ruling, The Chamber ordered the Executive Authority, within a maximum of 3 months, to istrate the fishery law in a manner that protects the constitutional right to a healthy environment. The Chamber also mandated that this process be carried out with public participation, which is essential to protecting this human right. “This decision is vital to the protection of coastal marine resources. The Fishery and Aquaculture Law had given the Executive Authority a period of 90 days to promulgate regulations, starting from April 25th, 2005 when the law was first published. However, after more than four years, the Executive Authority, represented by INCOPESCA, had still not issued the regulation,” stated attorney Gladys Martínez. “We understand the complexities of the issue, but these cannot be excuses to continue leaving a legal void that directly affects the conservation of Costa Rican and the planet’s, resources”, added Martínez. The plaintiffs petitioned the Constitutional Chamber to protect the human right to a healthy environment and balanced ecology and assure compliance with international obligations by carrying out its responsibility to promulgate regulations to implement this law. There are fundamental aspects to marine resource protection, such as aquaculture development, illegal fishing in protected areas, and containment of excessive fishing, the control of which is nonexistent or deficient, making this regulation imperative. “We at AIDA applaud the Chamber’s decision, as it recognizes the importance of effective protection of marine biodiversity and establishes a precedent of requiring public participation in the process”, commented Anna Cederstav from California, Co-Director of AIDA, “Given the grave situation of the world’s oceans and marine resources, and the necessity to counteract excessive exploitation and avoid impacts to current and future generations, it is urgent that this issue be resolved as soon as possible. Furthermore, Costa Rica has the opportunity to be an example in the conservation of oceans and their resources”, concluded Cederstav.

May 20 2009

Colombian Constitutional Court its AIDA's Complaint Against Mining Code (Spanish Text Only)

CORTE CONSTITUCIONAL ITE NUEVA DEMANDA CONTRA CÓDIGO DE MINAS PARA DEFENDER EL PRINCIPIO DE PRECAUCIÓN FRENTE A LAS ACTIVIDADES MINERAS PARA PUBLICACIÓN INMEDIATA OS: Jerónimo Rodríguez, AIDA, Tel. (571) 2681804 Andrés Idarraga, CENSAT, Tel. (571) 2440581 [email protected] [email protected] BOGOTÁ, 20 de mayo de 2009.- La Corte Constitucional colombiana itió esta semana la acción de inconstitucionalidad presentada por la Asociación Interamericana para la Defensa del Ambiente (AIDA), CENSAT – Agua Viva, el Observatorio de Conflictos Ambientales de la Universidad de Caldas y la Corporación Gestión por los Intereses Ambientales y Públicos (Iniciativa GESAP) contra los artículos 203 y 213 del Código de Minas, que permiten el uso de los recursos naturales para la exploración minera sin licencia ambiental y limitan las causales por las que las autoridades ambientales pueden negar una licencia ambiental para actividades mineras. Los artículos del Código de Minas demandados violan la Constitución de Colombia y la legislación ambiental internacional. Estos artículos priorizan la actividad minera sobre la protección ambiental, al punto de limitar las capacidades de las propias autoridades para verificar las condiciones de la explotación, y eventualmente autorizar la exploración y explotación con condiciones que sean ambientalmente sostenibles. Por esto, se violan entre otros, los principios de desarrollo sostenible y el principio de precaución que son parte fundamental de nuestra legislación. “Reconocemos que la minería es una industria importante para nuestro país, pero también lo es la protección de los recursos naturales, que garantizan la existencia misma de la especie humana en la actualidad y en el futuro. Por esto solicitamos a la Corte que aplique el principio de desarrollo sostenible reconocido en nuestra Constitución para que la minería se implemente sin la generación de daños severos e irreversibles a zonas estratégicas, como los páramos, y de las que dependen muchas comunidades”, señaló Jerónimo Rodríguez, asesor legal de AIDA en Colombia. Esta demanda se une a la presentada por AIDA y otros contra el artículo 34 del Código de Minas, que está pendiente de sentencia por la Corte Constitucional Colombiana. Ambas demandas recogen e insisten sobre las preocupaciones del Ministerio de Ambiente y de la Procuraduría General de la Nación frente a los efectos de las actividades mineras en el ambiente y la necesidad imperiosa de control, sin debilitar aún más las normas. “Buscamos con esta demanda de inconstitucionalidad la efectiva protección al ambiente y que el uso ocasional o transitorio de los recursos naturales en las actividades de exploración deba evaluarse por las autoridades ambientales. Además que las licencias ambientales no estén limitadas por causales formales, sino que las autoridades ambientales puedan, cuando sea necesario para protección ambiental y del interés público, negar licencias para la minería en aplicación del principio de precaución y de normas ambientales aplicables”, concluyó Rodríguez. AIDA es una ONG legal ambiental hemisférica que trabaja para fortalecer la capacidad de las personas para garantizar su derecho individual y colectivo a un ambiente sano por medio del desarrollo, aplicación y cumplimiento efectivo de la legislación nacional e internacional. Entre otros temas, AIDA prioriza la protección del derecho al agua y asegurar recursos de agua dulce adecuados para las comunidades y los ecosistemas.

May 15 2009

Costa Rican Court Orders Expropriation Of Land Slated For Tourism Development In The Leatherback Marine National Park

For immediate release: May 14, 2008 Press s: Rolando Castro, Attorney, CEDARENA Gladys Martínez, Attorney, AIDA (506) 2837080, [email protected] (506) 2837080, [email protected] COSTA RICAN COURT ORDERS EXPROPRIATION OF LAND SLATED FOR TOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN THE LEATHERBACK MARINE NATIONAL PARK SAN JOSÉ— On May 5th, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Costa Rica ordered the Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE) to begin expropriating private lands slated for tourism development within the Leatherback Marine National Park (LMNP) in Guanacaste. This decision follows a lawsuit filed in March 2005 by AIDA and its participating organizations in Costa Rica, the Center for Environmental Law and Natural Resources (CEDARENA), and Justice for Nature (JPN). The complaint alleged that the National Environmental Technical Secretary (SETENA), the Municipality of Santa Cruz, the Ministry of Finance, and MINAE violated the constitutional right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment by not protecting the LMNP and the nesting sites of the leatherback turtle located therein. This is a very important precedent in Costa Rica and the hemisphere, given that tourism development is proceeding at an unprecedented pace throughout the Americas. The Municipality of Santa Cruz and SETENA had issued construction permits within the park, ignoring the impacts that tourism development would have upon the leatherback turtles. With this decision, these permits are now invalid. “We hope that the Municipality and SETENA have received a clear message that they must take extreme caution with regard to national parks, and not approve projects that endanger what the parks were created to protect,” stated Rolando Castro, an attorney for CEDARENA. “Construction and operation of tourist sites within the LMNP would aggravate existing threats to the beach,” he added. Leatherback turtles are animals from the Jurassic age that have been declared an endangered species on the international level. They require particular nesting conditions that can be easily disturbed by the presence of human beings and construction lights. Hence, the development of tourist sites can severely affect the turtles’ reproduction, and consequently, their survival. The Leatherback Marine National Park has become the most important nesting site for this species in the Western Pacific Ocean. “MINAE should immediately heed this order to prevent the destruction that has occurred at other Costa Rican nesting beaches, such as Flamingo and Tamarindo,” affirmed Gladys Martinez, AIDA attorney. “All authorities within the Costa Rican government have an obligation to protect this species, which is part of our common patrimony, in addition to being a tourist attraction and hence a valuable economic resource for the country,” she added.

January 08 2009

Constitutional Court Orders Change in Environmental License for Baba Dam, Ecuador

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT ORDERS CHANGE IN ENVIRONMENTAL LICENSE FOR BABA DAM, ECUADOR FOR IMMEDIATE PUBLICATION: S: Silvana Rivadeneira (593 3) 2 459822 Astrid Puentes, AIDA (5255) 5212-0141 [email protected] [email protected] Quito, January 8, 2009 - The Constitutional Court of Ecuador ordered the country's Ministry of Environment to review and reformulate the environmental authorization granted to Baba's Multi-purpose Project (PMB), and the Attorney-General to audit the procedures and the approval of the environmental impact evaluations. According to the court's decision, there are risks of severe, irreparable damage to the Ecuatorian biodiversity that weren't properly assessed, in accordance with the conclusions of the Inter-American Development Bank experts. This resolution from Ecuador's highest court is a consequence of the lawsuit promoted by ECOLEX in May, 2007, which was rejected by the initial judge. ECOLEX then appealed to the Constitutional Court, insisting that it consisted in a violation of the human rights to a safe environment, to water, to property, to work, and to food, among others. Last June AIDA and the international organizations International Rivers and FIAN International ed the appeal through an amicus curiae document, denouncing the violations to international environmental standards and human rights, all of those binding the State of Ecuador. In addition to that, experts from the US organization ELAW also had mentioned serious mistakes in the study. The Constitutional Court's decision effectively recognized that the lack of a adequate evaluation violated the previously mentioned rights, as well as the principle of environmental caution. Silvana Rivadeneira, from ECOLEX, stated that "the decision is a great triumph to the affected communities and to the country, since it reinforces that the environmental protection is also a matter of national interest." The PMB would have implied in the flooding of more than 2.500 acres of important ecosystems at the province of Los Rios, affecting the river populations of the Baba Quevedo Vinces river and the habitat of endangered species such as the rascón bird, the small deer and chaleco's ant-eating bear. The project was authorized by the Ministry of Environment in November 2006 and it is being executed by the company Hidronación S.A., which took it over after the Brazilian Odebrecht was expeled from the country by the Ecuatorian government. In September 2008, AIDA, Earthjustice and ECOLEX, FIAN International and International Rivers requested for the international credits from the Clean Development Mechanism (a tool from the Kyoto Protocol to help fight climate change) not to be granted to the PMB. "The Baba project is an example of unclean energy and it could worsen the climate change, the court's decision confirms its lack of sustainability", said Monti Aguirre from International Rivers. "It is very significant that the court issued such decision a few days after the World Conference on Climate Change in Poland" mentioned Astrid Puentes, co-director of AIDA. "Given the negative effects for the environment, the people and the climate change caused by the hydroelectric dams - the very reason for which we ed such demand - the order to completely evaluate Baba's project is outstanding news. We will be following the review closely, and we expect this decision to serve as a precedent for the hundreds of hydroelectric powerplants that are currently ongoing in the Americas with flaws very similar to those present in Baba.

June 19 2008

AIDA s Legal Action Against Baba Dam (Spanish Text Only)

Para publicación inmediata os: Astrid Puentes (México) Natalia Landivar (Quito) Monti Aguirre (Berkeley, EEUU) (5255) 55212-0141 (593) 2 22 24 962 (1-510) 848-1155 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Organizaciones Internacionales apoyan amparo contra Proyecto Multipropósito Baba ante Tribunal Constitucional de Ecuadorpara proteger derechos humanos y ambiente QUITO, MÉXICO, BERKELEY, 19 DE JUNIO DE 2008-- La Asociación Interamericana para la Defensa del Ambiente (AIDA), presentó un amicus curiae (escrito de amigo de la corte) ante el Tribunal Constitucional de Ecuador, suscrito por International Rivers y FoodFirst Information and Action Network (FIAN) International, apoyando la demanda de Amparo Constitucional interpuesta por afectados del Proyecto Multipropósito Baba. Las organizaciones internacionales argumentaron violaciones a los derechos humanos y al ambiente en la aprobación del proyecto, por lo cual se unen a los demandantes para solicitar la suspensión de su ejecución. “Existen sinnúmero de experiencias donde la implementación inadecuada de mega-represas ha generado daños irreversibles, es necesario aprender de ellas” aseguró Astrid Puentes de AIDA. “La producción de energía no puede implementarse a costa del ambiente y de los derechos humanos, más aún cuando existen alternativas que ni siquiera se han evaluado y que a la larga, podrían evitar mayores costos para los países” puntualizó. El Proyecto Baba, que incluye la construcción de una represa que inundará más de 1,000 hectáreas, fue aprobado por el Ministerio de Medio Ambiente en noviembre de 2006 sin los estudios de impacto ambiental y sociales integrales que se exigen en la legislación nacional e internacionalmente. Estos estudios son de vital importancia, pues el proyecto afectará importantes zonas y tierras de cultivo, impactando seriamente la vida de cientos de personas que dependen de la pesca y la agricultura. Además, se dañará seriamente el hábitat de biodiversidad endémica y en peligro de extinción, como el ave rascón, el venado pequeño y el oso hormiguero de chaleco. “Tenemos la confianza que el Tribunal considerará los estándares internacionales en su decisión” mencionó Monti Aguirre de International Rivers. Dentro de los derechos afectados con este proyecto se incluyen el derecho a la calidad de vida, a la alimentación y a la vivienda, al ambiente sano, al debido proceso y a las garantías judiciales, y a la consulta previa, consagrados en la Constitución Ecuatoriana, en la Convención Americana, el Convenio 169 de la OIT, el Pacto Internacional de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales y el Protocolo de San Salvador, entre otros. “Buscamos aportar argumentos ante el Tribunal Constitucional evidenciando que la aprobación del proyecto ignora normas internacionales ambientales y de derechos humanos, lo cual puede generar responsabilidad internacional del gobierno ecuatoriano” aseguró Natalia Landivar de FIAN ECUADOR. “Confiamos en que se fallará de acuerdo a las normas” agregó.

June 02 2008

Costa Rican Court Reinforces Protection of Leatherback National Marine Park: Declares Ruling Allowing Construction in Park Unconstitutional

SAN JOSÉ, Costa Rica, June 2, 2008 – On May 23rd, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Costa Rica repealed a municipal zoning regulation because of its impacts on the most important nesting zone for the leatherback sea turtle in the Eastern Pacific Ocean: the Leatherback National Marine Park (LNMP). The court resolution confirms that the park is necessary to guarantee protection of the leatherback turtle, an internationally declared endangered species, and therefore development within the park must be prevented. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, the Leatherback Trust, which filed suit in July 2006 against the zoning regulation for the Cabo Velas district of the city of Santa Cruz in the province of Guanacaste. In filing this suit, the Trust was advised by the Environmental and Natural Resources Law Center (CEDARENA), with the the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) regarding applicable aspects of international law. Only two weeks ago, the same court ordered the Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE) to begin expropriating private lands inside the park due to the impact of private developments on the leatherback turtles. This decision resulted from a case brought by CEDARENA, AIDA, and the Costa Rican organization, Justice for Nature (JPN). The zoning regulation that the court annulled in the May 23rd ruling allowed the City of Santa Cruz to issue construction permits inside the park, ignoring the serious impacts that such operations can have on leatherback turtles. “As is well known, leatherbacks require special nesting conditions and thus people’s presence and lights from construction operations on nesting beaches seriously impacts the turtles,” declared Mario Boza, biologist for The Leatherback Trust. The LNMP was created to preserve the conditions necessary for the turtles’ reproduction, but the zoning regulation disregarded this intention. “We are very pleased with the court decision in Costa Rica because it sets a precedent that builds hope for the conservation of this species,” declared Astrid Puentes, Legal Director for AIDA. “We hope that this decision will be replicated in other countries in the region,” added Puentes. The court’s decision is retroactive, so it should cancel all the permits granted and constructions operations initiated under the regulation. “With this decision the court is not only protecting Costa Rica’s ecological balance, as established in article 50 of the Costa Rican Constitution, but also ordering the country to comply with its commitments to international agreements,” declared Rolando Castro, a lawyer with CEDARENA. Press s Rolando Castro, Attorney, (506) 283-7080 [email protected] CEDARENA Gladys Martínez, Attorney, AIDA: (506) 283-7080 [email protected]