e pygmy children in the Ituri forest in Congo playi Ef · PDF filee pygmy children in the...

International

our environment, our rightsstanding up for people and the planet

issu

e 10

6

Efe

pygm

y ch

ildre

n in

th

e It

uri

for

est

in C

ongo

pla

yin

g th

e "O

san

i" g

ame,

in w

hic

h e

ach

ch

ild n

ames

cir

cula

r ob

ject

s an

d co

nce

pts.

rights© je

an-p

ierr

e h

alle

t. e

xclu

sive

rig

hts

: su

san

fas

sber

g(d

ears

ooz@

yah

oo.c

om, w

ww

.fass

ber

g.c

om/p

ygm

y)

106wateraugust 2004 | issue 106

Read

ab

out

and

get

invo

lved

in t

he

mos

tu

rgen

ten

viro

nm

enta

l an

d s

ocia

lca

mp

aign

s ar

oun

d t

he

wor

ld b

y su

bsc

rib

ing

to F

rien

ds

of t

he

Eart

hIn

tern

atio

nal

’s link

seri

es o

f p

ub

licat

ion

s!

sub

scri

pti

on r

ates

[an

ave

rage

of

4 p

ub

licat

ion

s p

er y

ear

incl

ud

ing

pos

tage

]in

divi

dual

s &

ngo

su

s$30

thir

d w

orld

/ lo

cal g

rou

p r

ate

us$

15co

rpor

ate

rate

us$

90

For

pay

men

td

etai

ls, p

leas

e co

nta

ctth

e Fo

EI S

ecre

tari

at

linkme up!

friends of the earth Friends of the Earth International is the world’s largest grassroots environmentalnetwork, uniting 68 diverse national member groups and some 5,000 local activist groups on everycontinent. With approximately one million members and supporters around the world, we campaignon today’s most urgent environmental and social issues. We challenge the current model of economicand corporate globalization, and promote solutions that will help to create environmentallysustainable and socially just societies.

friends of the earth has groups in: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria,Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Curaçao (Antilles), Cyprus, Czech Republic,Denmark, El Salvador, England/Wales/Northern Ireland, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany,Ghana, Greece, Grenada (West Indies), Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia,Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia (former Yugoslav Republic of), Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritius,Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru,Philippines, Poland, Scotland, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden,Switzerland, Togo, Tunisia, Ukraine, United States, and Uruguay.

(Please contact the FoEI Secretariat or check our website for FoE groups’ contact info)

Published August, 2004 in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. ISBN: 90-0914913-9.

editorial team Ann Doherty (Friends of the Earth International), Tatiana Roa (Friends of the Earth Colombia), Marijke Torfs (Friends of the Earth International)

design Tania Dunster, KÏ Design, [email protected]

printing PrimaveraQuint, www.primaveraquint.nl

International

friends of the earth international secretariat

P.O. Box 191991000 GD AmsterdamThe NetherlandsTel: 31 20 622 1369Fax: 31 20 639 2181E-mail: [email protected]: www.foei.org

© jean-pierre hallet. exclusive rights: susan fassberg([email protected],www.fassberg.com/pygmy)

foei | 3

one sustainable societies 7

1. the right to a sustainable livelihood 8sugar poisoning for ava guarani indigenous livelihoods disrupted by sugar corporation in argentina 8logging over livelihoods cameroonian villagers sue french forest company 10

2. the right to a clean and healthy environment 12island sickened by shell’s toxic legacy 12right to health versus right to profit ukrainian people triumph over polluting factory 14airplanes prevail over sleeper’s rights 15the right to remain a wetland saemangeum campaign in south korea nears victory 16fumigating colombia an attack on human and environmental rights 18

3. the right to water 20water for the people privatization gone bad in cochabamba 20thirsty for information in slovakia public shut out of water privatization plans 22water as a constitutional right in uruguay? 23

4. the right to food safety and security 24costa rican farmers bamboozled by banana company 24mexican farmers threatened by gmo contamination 25bite back! thousands call for food safety 26

preface why we campaign for rights 4introduction environmental rights are human rights 5

two information, participation and security 27

1. collective rights 28indonesia’s dayak pitap want to be left alone 28the poison, leave it aboriginal women win battle against australian government 30

2. the right to know 32the right to know who wrecks the climate german government sued for non-transparency 32the right to know, at home and abroad 34ifis shirk responsibility for human rights violations 35something smells around here european investment bank ignores right to know 35

3. the right to decide 36west african pipeline dragged before nigerian court 36bulldozing rights road to nowhere in papua new guinea 38

4. the right to resist 40poverty, violence and environmental justice a testimony by juan almendares, friends of the earth honduras 40blood and oil in the ecuadorian amazon quichua rights upheld by inter-american court 42un human rights norms under attack by business 42

three redress 43

1. rights for environmental refugees 44damning human rights at china’s three gorges 44global warming and climate refugees in the pacific nations 46

2. right to claim ecological debt 48scots address ecological debt 48reclaiming submerged rights communities seek compensation for impacts of yacyretá mega-dam 49

3. right to environmental justice 50environmental justice movement west dallas, united states and now the world 50friends of the earth seeks climate justice 52agents for environmental justice 52us climate victims file suit 53climate change and environmental racism in the niger delta 54himalayan communities threatened by melting glacial lakes 56

appendices 57

1. landmark environmental rights cases 582. legal tools addressing human and environmental rights 593. human and environmental rights contacts 59

our

envi

ron

men

t, o

ur

righ

tsst

and

ing

up

for

peo

ple

an

d t

he

pla

net

© f

réd

éric

cas

tell,

foe

fra

nce

4 | foei

What does the environment have to do withhuman rights? Why is an environmental grouplike Friends of the Earth International protectingand demanding human rights? What doconcepts like environmental rights andenvironmental justice mean?

These were some of the questions thatFriends of the Earth activists grappled with atthe October 2003 conference onEnvironmental and Human Rights inCartagena, Colombia. Representatives of our68 member groups gathered with otherenvironmentalists, social movements andhuman rights defenders to listen to stories ofhuman rights abuses and discuss strategiesfor fighting environmental rights violations.The conference provided a basis fordeveloping a philosophical framework toguide our thinking and campaign strategies.

This publication brings together some of thehuman and environmental rights abusesexperienced by many of our groups, and theiractions to protect these fundamental rights.Not only do we want to share these storiesand our vision about environmental rightsmore widely, but we also want to state ourcommitment as a network to fight for theprotection of the human and environmentalrights of the people and communities wework with around the world.

what can we do?

Friends of the Earth International values the recent advances in theinternational recognition of individual and collective human rights.However, despite progress in creating legal frameworks to addressrights, violations continue and are even increasing due to the currentglobal model of production and consumption that is imposed byneoliberal economic globalization. Many states ignore or are unaware ofinternational and regional conventions and regional agreements, givingfree reign to transnational corporations to advance destructively andwith impunity.

Friends of the Earth International will promote the concepts ofenvironmental rights and environmental justice and work for therecognition of new rights. Beyond that, and together with otherenvironmentalists, we will create an ethic that recognizes the value anddiversity of life in all forms and the interdependence between humanbeings and nature. Our concept of environmental justice willacknowledge the dignity of nature, the web of life, and the independentrhythms of biological and ecological processes. In short, we will work toprotect environments and people alike against the aggressions ofneoliberal economic globalization.

We must recognize that existing enshrined rights are the fruit of theefforts of communities that have historically resisted violations anddemanded their rights, and that we can only move further if we join theresistance of those whose rights are being violated today. For thisreason, our alliances with social movements, both on the ethical andpolitical levels, must form a basis for our campaigns. We plan to debate,define and promote national and international legal instruments inorder to support the enforcement and protection of our rights, and wewill strive for environmental justice in all that we do.

preface: why we campaign for rightstatiana roa, friends of the earth colombia, coordinator of friends of the earthinternational’s work on environmental and human rights.

© m

agd

a st

oczk

iew

icz,

foe

i

© m

agd

a st

oczk

iew

icz,

foe

i

© f

réd

éric

cas

tell,

foe

fra

nce

Indi

gen

ous

Embe

ra c

hild

ren

dem

onst

rate

du

rin

g th

e Fr

ien

ds o

f th

e Ea

rth

Inte

rnat

ion

alm

eeti

ng

on H

um

an a

nd

Envi

ron

men

tal R

ight

s in

Car

tage

na,

Col

ombi

a.

© f

réd

éric

cas

tell,

foe

fra

nce

foei | 5

People all over the world are claiming their rights. In early 2004, the AvaGuarani people of Argentina marched 1,774 miles to demand that thegovernment return the 5,000 hectares of their ancestral territory givento a global corporation for sugar production. Cameroonian cocoafarmers have taken a French forest company to court for destroyingtheir plantations in the mad rush to export logs. Friends of the EarthUruguay and others have organized a national referendum that couldmake access to water a fundamental human right. Maple sugar tappersin the United States have sued the Bush administration, claiming thattheir livelihoods are threatened by the global climate change to whichthe United States is a major contributor. Tens of thousands ofEuropeans are demanding the right to eat food free of geneticallymodified organisms. And the list goes on.

What all of these claims have in common is that they are based onpeople’s environmental rights. Environmental rights mean access to theunspoiled natural resources that enable survival, including land, shelter,food, water and air. They also include more purely ecological rights,including the right for a certain beetle to survive or the right for anindividual to enjoy an unspoiled landscape. In Friends of the Earth’svision, environmental rights include political rights like rights forindigenous peoples and other collectivities, the right to information and

participation in decision-making, freedom of opinion and expression,and the right to resist unwanted developments. We also believe in theright to claim reparations for violated rights, including rights for climaterefugees and others displaced by environmental destruction, the rightto claim ecological debt, and the right to environmental justice.

Many of these rights, particularly the political ones, are well-establishedand enshrined in various conventions and agreements. We can creditthe establishment of some of these rights, as well as the acceptance ofothers that are not yet legally recognized, to the ongoing struggles ofcommunities and indigenous peoples around the world. Other ‘new’rights, including rights for climate refugees, have arisen over recentyears due to the acceleration of economic globalization and theaccompanying environmental destruction and social disruption. Stillothers, like the right to claim ecological debt, have emerged as the resultof years of campaigning by Friends of the Earth and others for therecognition of the impacts of northern resource depletion and naturaldestruction in southern countries. All of these rights are equallyimportant, and they are all interdependent. Environmental rights arehuman rights, as people’s livelihoods, their health, and sometimes theirvery existence depend upon the quality of and their access to thesurrounding environment as well as the recognition of their rights toinformation, participation, security and redress.

Rights can be asserted in a variety of ways: for example, by appealingdirectly to the violating government, international financial institutionor corporation; through international, regional and national courts; byapplying public and media pressure; and by building coalitions withothers seeking similar rights. This publication draws on case studiesfrom around the world to provide information and inspiration about thegrowing potential for rights-based campaigning within theenvironmental movement.

the development of human rights

Over the past decades, human rights have been identified and codifiedin a vast body of international and regional agreements. The bestknown of these is the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights,which obliges members of the international community to respect therights of all human beings to life, to an adequate standard of living, toliberty and security, to freedom of opinion and expression, and toparticipate in the government of his or her country. In 1976, twoadditional International Covenants entered into force under theauspices of the United Nations, one covering Civil and Political Rightsand the other Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Civil and political rights are often considered the ‘first generation’ ofrights, and are sometimes termed ‘negative rights’ as they require statesto refrain from actions such as torturing their citizens or denying themfree speech. The ‘second generation’ of Economic, Social and CulturalRights, on the other hand, are often ‘positive’, requiring governmentalaction to provide goods and services like housing and schools. Both thefirst and second generations of human rights were framed in responseto the needs of individuals whose rights were violated over the previousdecades, and today enjoy a fairly high level of public acceptance, if notgovernmental adherence.

introduction: environmental rights are human rights

© m

agd

a st

oczk

iew

icz,

foe

i

6 | foei

the emergence of environmental rights

In recent years, catalyzed by the negative impacts of widespreadeconomic globalization on people and the environment around theworld, another category of rights has arisen. These new rights oftenapply to communities or groups of people attempting to achieve healthyand sustainable livelihoods in various parts of the world. They areurgently needed, as the projects and policies promoted by internationalfinancial institutions, trade bodies and transnational corporations oftentrample people’s rights to live in sustainable societies.

In the name of ‘development’ and ‘free trade’, governments andtransnational corporations are steadily seizing control of land, water,forests and minerals. All of this leads to environmental and humanrights violations such as the confiscation of land, evictions, pollution,destruction of natural resources, police presence, militarization,violence, intimidation and worse. Women very often bear the brunt ofthese violations as they struggle to protect and nourish their families.Those who attempt to defend the environment, including people fromaffected communities and environmental campaigners, are also oftenvictims of intimidation and human rights violations by vested politicaland economic interests.

The same current economic globalization policies that are threateningpeople and their habitats around the world are also not designed to allowpeople to decide upon their own futures. Information about developmentprojects and plans is often insufficient or nonexistent, and affectedpeople are often excluded from the relevant decision-making processes.

Environmental rights go hand-in-hand with civil and political rights.Marginalized people around the world, including women, people of color andimpoverished people in industrialized countries, suffer from environmentalinjustice by bearing the brunt of pollution. As many of the case studies in thispublication show, the most egregious environmental rights violations tend to

be inflicted on peoples whose civil, political, social and economic rights are notrespected. Friends of the Earth International believes that a new ethic isrequired, one that strives for environmental justice and recognizes theinterdependence of humans and their environments.

Environmental rights are complex in that they require governments toprotect the environment, which often entails economic measures likeregulating corporate activities, international trade, or investments byinternational financial institutions. The emerging need for rights forvictims of global climate change poses a particular challenge togovernments in that they are being asked to restructure economies andrelinquish sovereignty by taking part in international environmentalagreements such as the Kyoto Climate Protocol.

environmental rights legislation

On the official level, the link between human and environmental rightswas first made in 1972 at the Stockholm Conference on the HumanEnvironment. The 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro helped to create anormative framework for environmental and human rights both in theprinciples set out in the Rio Declaration and in the Agenda 21 Plan ofAction. In 1994, the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and theEnvironment for the Sub-Commission on the Prevention ofDiscrimination and Protection of Minorities released a groundbreaking,

detailed analysis of the relationship between human rights and theenvironment, concluding that environmental damage has an adverseaffect on the enjoyment of a series of human rights, and that humanrights violations in turn damage the environment. In the meantime, aseries of UN resolutions, court decisions and international bodies havefurther shaped and endorsed this general statement. To date, however,there is little binding legislation referring to environmental human rights.

Furthermore, those suffering from environmental rights violations donot always have access to legal channels. International human rightslaw, and in particular environmental rights law, is complicated, slow andhas limited enforceability. Not all states are not party to the relevantregional or international conventions, and their citizens thus do notenjoy access to the relevant international courts. Access to internationalcourts can generally only be obtained when national remedies havebeen exhausted. Even when a case does manage to work its way upthrough the international legal system, victories are still few and farbetween. And then, even when the law comes down on the side ofthose who have been violated, governments do not always take up theirresponsibilities to rectify the situation.

Nonetheless, the existing human rights declarations and covenants docarry significant moral weight, and can be used to bring global attentionto violations happening in the most remote corners of the earth.Important regional and national legislative initiatives exist, includingthe Inter-American Convention on Human Rights, the European Union’sCharter of European Rights and the new African Charter of Human andPeoples’ Rights, all of which specifically acknowledge the right to ahealthy environment. Significant public pressure can be exerted ongovernments through the rulings of the courts that enforce these andother international rights laws. Affected communities are learning tomake use of these national and international legal systems to bringattention to their plights and strengthen their campaigns for justice.

© f

réd

éric

cas

tell,

foe

fra

nce

Indigenous Embera dance and demonstrate during the Friends of the Earth International meeting on Human andEnvironmental Rights in Cartagena, Colombia.

foei | 7

1. the right to a sustainable livelihood

2. the right to a clean and healthy environment

3. the right to water

4. the right to food safety and security

part one | sustainable societies

© f

réd

éric

cas

tell,

foe

fra

nce

Pygmy mother and child, Cameroon.

8 | foei

sugar poisoning forava guaraniindigenous livelihoods disrupted bysugar corporation in argentinafriends of the earth argentina

Argentina’s Salta province is the homeland ofthe indigenous Ava Guarani people. Today, thecorn, manioc, and vegetables once grown bythese people in the midst of fertile forestshave been replaced by monoculture sugarcane and genetically modified soy cash crops.This environmental destruction has beenaccompanied by the displacement andrepression of the Ava Guarani themselves.

The Ava Guarani lived on their ancestral landsuntil the 1970s, when violent evictions forcedthem from their homes and farms in order tomake way for the San Martin del Tabacalcompany’s sugar plantations and refineries.Many had no choice but to work in Tabacal’sfactories, ‘paid’ with vouchers valid only at thecompany’s own shop. In 1996, the US-basedSeaboard Corporation bought Tabacal andfired 6,000 employees, forcing many of theAva Guarani to seek work in the city. Some 150Ava Guarani families now live on just two

hectares of flood-prone lands, while theTabacal mill uses one million hectares toproduce sugar on indigenous territories.

In September 2003, a group of 70 Ava Guaranifamilies decided to return to their ancestralterritory, known as ‘La Loma’ (The Hill) in Saltaprovince. Just days later, they were brutallyevicted from their re-occupied land by a groupof armed police, who aimed firearms at theirheads then shot into the air. All of the AvaGuarani were then detained, includingchildren and pregnant women. Thedisplacement was reportedly ordered by theTabacal company.

Friends of the Earth International believesthat sustainable livelihoods are enabled wheneconomic activities meet people’s real needs,and resources are used sustainably. Peoplemust enjoy equal access to resources, and thebenefits from the use of those resourcesshould be equitably distributed. Theindiscriminate pursuit of growth bycorporations, supported by internationalfinancial institutions and trade bodies, oftenmakes sustainable livelihoods impossible.

Sustainable livelihoods are dependent uponthe fulfillment of various other rights; andthey are threatened when these rights areviolated. The rights to water, food and a cleanand healthy environment are essential, as arerights for women, indigenous peoples andother collectivities, and for farmers.Procedural rights, including access toinformation, security and the right to redressmust also be secured.

The cases of the Ava Guarani of Argentina,whose croplands have been given to a sugarcorporation, and small communities inCameroon whose fruit trees have beendestroyed by multinational logging

companies, illustrate how the current globaltrade system destroys thriving andsustainable local economies. In both cases,affected people are making use of variouspressure tactics and legal tools to reclaimtheir rights to sustainable livelihoods.

more information:Friends of the Earth International’s Trade,Environment and Sustainability programme:www.foei.org/tradeTowards Sustainable Economies: ChallengingNeoliberal Economic Globalization, Friends of theEarth International:www.foei.org/publications/pdfs/sustain-e.pdf

one sustainable societies

1 the right to a sustainable livelihood


© n

icol

as p

oust

hom

is,

ww

w.a

rgen

tin

aph

oto.

linef

eed

.org

Ava

Gu

aran

i dem

onst

rate

in A

rgen

tin

a fo

rth

e re

turn

of

thei

r an

cest

ral l

ands

.

foei | 9

marching for justice

In November, members of the communitymarched nearly 300 kilometers to Salta City toclaim their land rights and ask for justice. Whentheir requests to meet with the governor werenot granted, they decided to travel a further1,500 kilometers to Buenos Aires to meet withthe president of Argentina. Although theMinister of Social Development pledged toinvestigate the eviction and the land conflictwith Tabacal, the eventual promised visit wasshort and unsatisfactory, and officials did noteven manage to visit La Loma.

As the doors of governments and publicoffices closed behind them, the Ava Guaranireceived support from unemployed workers,peasant farmers’ movements, environmentalgroups and the media in order to organizeactions at Tabacal’s main office in BuenosAires. The Ava Guarani case has also attractedglobal attention. In April 2004, activistssuccessfully penetrated Seaboard’s annualshareholder’s meeting outside of Boston,posing questions about indigenous landrights in Salta before themselves beingforcibly evicted from the meeting.

Despite continued threats from the companyand police, the Ava Guarani are holding out ontheir demand for five thousand hectares ofland, enough to sustain 150 families. Forthem, the return of this small parcel of land tocultivate would be sweeter than sugar.

more information:Comunidad Guarani El Tabacal:[email protected] of the Earth Argentina: [email protected] of the Earth Internationalwww.foei.org/cyberaction/ava.htmlAlerta Salta (in Spanish): www.alerta-salta.org.arIndymedia Argentina:www.argentina.indymedia.org/features/pueblosWorcester Global Action Network:www.wogan.org/seaboardArgentina Autonomista Project:www.autonomista.org/tabacal.htmSeaboard information:www.factoryfarming.org/empirepigs.htm

© n

icol

as p

oust

hom

is, w

ww

.arg

enti

nap

hot

o.lin

efee

d.o

rg

“Red is the color of our

people’s blood; brown is our

ancestral territory, our land

and what we are fighting

for; green is the color of

nature, our crops, the forest,

our woods.”Ramon Tamani, Ava Guarani, Salta.

Ava Guarani demonstrate in Argentina for the return of their ancestral lands.

10 | foei

logging overlivelihoods cameroonian villagers sue french forest company friends of the earth france

In the Miatta region of Cameroon, 300kilometers from the capital city of Yaoundé,once lush village plantations of cocoa,mandarin and other fruit trees have beencrushed under the wheels of heavy machinery.Gutted red dirt roads lead deeper into theforest, but there are only gashes where themost beautiful and valuable tree species –sipo, iroko, mahogany, sapelli – stood beforebeing illegally chopped down and dragged offfor export. This means that villagers are notonly deprived of income from theirplantations, but they are also left withdamaged biodiversity in the surrounding area.

According to local planters, the destruction isthe work of the Cameroonian ForestCorporation (SFID), which has been illegallyexploiting timber in the forests surroundingthe village since the late 1990s. In 2002,Friends of the Earth France and sevenCameroonian villagers launched a civil action



© f

réd

éric

cas

tell,

foe

fra

nce

© f

réd

éric

cas

tell,

foe

fra

nce

“We need money to clear

the plantation again, and

then we need to wait four

years until the cocoa starts

to produce again. I have

four children, and am

also responsible for the

seven children of my

unmarried sisters.”Jean-Jacques Ngbwa Abondo, a Cameroonian

plaintiff in the lawsuit against French

multinational Rougier, in a 27 March 2002

article in Le Monde.

Pygmy children in Cameroon.

foei | 11

lawsuit against SFID and its parent firm inFrance, SA Rougier, claiming that the Frenchcompany was largely responsible for theunlawful activities of its Camerooniansubsidiary, including property destruction,forgery, stolen goods and corruption.

The complaint was a precedent in Frenchcourts in the fight against overseas corporateimpunity. Although criminal law is applicableto any crime committed by a French citizenoutside French territory, the condition ofdouble incrimination means that the offencemust also be punished in the country where itwas made. Although the plaintiffs producedevidence that a local sentence was notfeasible due to the general climate ofcorruption in Cameroon, the court deemedthis unacceptable. Moreover, French lawstipulates that offences committed abroadare under the jurisdiction of the publicprosecutor, who can consider that an act is

not sufficiently serious to justify thebeginning of legal proceedings. These pointsled to the case being thrown out of Frenchcourts at the end of 2002, and then again inearly 2004 following an appeal.

According to Friends of the Earth France, thedecision highlights how flagrantly ill-suitedFrench law is to the challenges and realities ofeconomic globalization, and adds urgency totheir call for a legally-binding convention fortransnational corporations. In the meantime,they and the Cameroonian villagers areplanning another appeal, this time to theFrench Supreme Court, in the hopes ofoverturning the decision.

more information:Friends of the Earth Cameroon:www.africa-environment.org/cedFriends of the Earth France:www.amisdelaterre.org

© f

réd

éric

cas

tell,

foe

fra

nce

© f

réd

éric

cas

tell,

foe

fra

nce

Whether in cities, forests, farmlands orvillages, people’s environments may bedegraded through air and water pollution,noise, ecosystem deterioration and reducedbiological diversity. A emerging category of‘environmental rights’ requires governmentsto set environmental standards in order toprotect people’s surroundings. In 1972, theStockholm Declaration set out the right to life“in an environment of a quality that permits alife of dignity and well-being,” and this righthas since been enshrined in a number of otherlegal conventions.

An unhealthy environment inevitably impactsthe health of the people living within it. InCuraçao, decades of pollution from theoperations of the Shell corporation havefouled the air and burdened people with ahost of health problems. In the Ukraine, localpeople have battled a car battery factory thathas caused high levels of pollution andillnesses. In the United Kingdom, people aresuffering from health problems related tonight flights in and out of Heathrow airport.

In South Korea, activists have waged a longbattle to preserve the Saemangeum wetlands,an important feeding stop for migrating birdsthat the government hopes to reclaim forindustrial and agricultural purposes. InColombia, the ongoing aerial fumigation ofcoca and other crops has devastated thehealth of the ecosystems and people livingbeneath this toxic spray. These campaigns toprotect the health of people and theenvironment are all important contributionsto the struggle to have environmental rightsrecognized and enforced.

2 the right to a clean and healthy environment

12 | foei

island sickened byshell’s toxic legacyFriends of the Earth Curaçao

Curaçao is a small island in the Caribbean,with kilometers of coral reefs, sandy beaches,and semi-arid landscapes in the interior.Thanks to Royal Dutch Shell, Curaçao also hasa toxic legacy that has plagued the island’speople and environment for close to a century.

In 1918, Shell began construction of an oilrefinery on Curaçao, which lies just 90kilometers off the coast of Venezuela. AsCuraçao was a Dutch colony, this was aprofitable arrangement for both the oil giantand the Dutch government. Venezuelan oilcould be refined close to Venezuela but onDutch territory, which was good for Shell’sprofits and did not risk giving the Venezuelansthe means of refining their own oil.

In 1953, a year before Curaçao acquiredautonomous status within the Dutch Kingdom,the colonial government exempted Shell from allenvironmental obligations. The newly acquiredautonomy was thus largely powerless againstthe biggest employer and polluter on the island.

In 1985, Shell abandoned the refinery. Beforeleaving, and following consultation with theDutch government, the company secured adeclaration of immunity from the governmentof Curaçao. The declaration stated that Shellwould not be held liable for any environmentaldamage that its activities had inflicted on theisland over the 70-year period of its operations.In return for this immunity, Shell sold therefinery to a government agency for less thenUS$1, a deal that both parties portrayed to thepublic as a win-win situation that would boostlocal employment. The government thenleased the refinery to the Venezuelan state oilcompany, PdVSA, for a modest fee.


2 the right to a clean and healthyenvironment

© f

oe c

ura

çao

foei | 13

locals cheated out of their health

The operations of the oil refinery have causedserious health and environmental problems,including premature deaths, cancers, birthdefects, asthma, respiratory disorders, skindiseases and childhood illnesses. In 1983, avisiting Dutch agency concluded that:“Concentrations of pollutants on Curaçao areapproximately four times higher thanmaximum concentrations accepted anywhereelse in the world. This implies that irreparabledamage is being inflicted to the health ofhuman beings that inhale the chemical,organic and toxic pollutants emitted by Shell.”(DCMR, 1983).

Amigu di Tera/Friends of the Earth Curaçaoand the affected communities organized hugeprotest demonstrations on WorldEnvironment Day in 1988, 1989 and 1990. Thisresulted in a new environmental law, the first

since autonomy, but the law is weak.Although the refinery was required to obtainan environmental permit for the first time inhistory, the permit is lax and open-ended. Therefinery is not required to makeenvironmental improvements, and the lawstipulates that the government must pay halfof the costs of future environmentalmeasures. As the government is broke, thismeans more health victims and moreenvironmental degradation every day.

Shell gave a very bad deal to the 150,000inhabitants of Curaçao, and Friends of theEarth, NGOs including the Humane CareFoundation, and local communities plan tohold the company liable. They are calling uponShell to clean up the areas affected by itsactivities, to compensate the oil workers andcommunities whose health has suffered, andto compensate for property damage. In themeantime, they want the new operator to

immediately and drastically reduce thepollution that it generates and providecompensation for its part of theenvironmental damage.

more information:Behind the Shine: The Other Shell Report 2003, www.foei.org/publications/corporates/shellshine.html

© f

oe c

ura

çao

© f

oe c

ura

çao

14 | foei

right to healthversus right toprofitukrainian people triumph overpolluting factory Zelenyi Svit/Friends of the Earth Ukraine

A legacy of the Soviet regime in the Ukrainecan still be witnessed when human rights arepitted against economic profit: the motto‘results at any price’ continues to be theofficial norm. As a result, economicdevelopment in the Ukraine is being achievedthrough the importation of cheap, outdated,and often outlawed technologies fromdeveloped countries. Not surprisingly, people’shealth and the need to preserve the country’snatural resources are ignored.

A prime example of this maldevelopment hasunfolded in the Dnipropetrovsk region, aheavily industrialized area with incrediblyhigh levels of pollution. In 1992, the Ukraniancompany ISTA began constructing a carbattery factory there, importing equipmentfrom Germany where local protesters hadmanaged to stop production.

Between 1995 and 2000, local people livingnear the plant began to suffer from healthproblems. These were confirmed by medicalpractitioners: a local dentist, for example,found lead in the teeth of his child patients. Inaddition, former plant workers began todisclose details of bad practice. Concernedindividuals tried to get the authorities and theplant management to deal with theseconcerns to no avail.

breaking bread together

At this point, Friends of the Earth Ukraine wascalled in for support. They helped to organizea local action group, and called a meeting inApril 2000 to protest against ISTA’sinfringement of environmental and humanrights. Over 1,000 people turned up, includingplant management, who angered the crowdby asserting that the plant was no moredangerous than a “bread shop”.

After the meeting, ISTA started legalproceedings against the action group, thelocal Friends of the Earth branch and the localdentist, alleging that the plant wasenvironmentally benign and that their imagewas being damaged. They attempted tointimidate the activists and their supportersinto submission. In response, Friends of theEarth hired experts to collect informationabout the factory. They found that the plantdid not have the necessary environmental

expertise, and was not fulfilling its obligationsto supply information to the authorities. AfterFriends of the Earth publicly denounced thepersecution of its members by the company,ISTA requested a meeting and the mediabecame involved.

In the end, the planned expansion of the plantwas stopped, people living in the vicinity ofthe factory were given a satisfactory out-of-court settlement, and the entire plantmanagement was replaced. In addition, someexisting national environmental laws werestrengthened. As a result of the victory, themembership of Friends of the Earth Ukraineincreased, putting the group in a strongerposition to monitor the activities of ISTA andother companies that defy people’senvironmental rights.

more information:Friends of the Earth Ukraine: [email protected]



© f

oe u

krai

ne

© f

oe u

krai

ne

Involving the media in the campaign to stop expansion of polluting battery plant in the Ukraine.

Young members of Friends of the Earth Ukrainedisplaying banners: “No to battery plant!”“Don't sacrifice children's lives for batteries!”

© b

ill o

smen

t/fo

e u

k



airplanes prevailover sleeper’s rightsfriends of the earth england, wales & northern ireland

Heathrow airport is one of the world’s busiestairports, with close to 500,000 flights to orfrom the airport each year. Residents livingnext to Heathrow and under the flight pathare exposed to extreme levels of noise, oftenfour times higher than World HealthOrganization maximums. Such noise levels arewell recognized as posing a threat to humanhealth, and can lead to stress, depression,memory loss and visual impairment. Somepeople living next to the airport are exposed tothe roar of an aircraft landing or taking offevery 90 seconds, from 6 in the morning untilafter 10 at night, seven days per week.

The worst impact of Heathrow’s night flightscomes from the effect on people’s sleep. Inaddition to the general noise of the flights, thereare a number of flights every day that take placein the very early hours of the morning or late atnight. These are a massive disruption to people’ssleep, often preventing sleep altogether whenthey occur past 4 in the morning.

case flies in and out of court

Several years ago, the UK government changedthe laws governing night flights to allow moreof them to take place. As a result, a number ofpeople who lived under the flight path andwho were therefore already suffering fromextreme sleep deprivation took the UK tocourt, and eventually to the European Court ofHuman Rights (ECHR). They claimed a violationof the right to respect for private and familylife, as the ECHR does not have a specific rightto a clean and healthy environment.

Two years ago, the European Court of HumanRights ruled in favor of the individuals. However,the UK appealed the decision and took the caseto the Grand Chamber of the European Court. Atthis point, Friends of the Earth joined in the caseto try and highlight the way in which otherhuman rights courts around the world haveaddressed environmental human rights.

In a disappointing judgment in the summer of2003, the Grand Chamber reversed the earlierdecision, deciding in favor of the UKgovernment. The judgment was severelycriticized by human rights and environmentallawyers. Five of the seventeen judges hearingthe case disagreed with the majority andfound that the judgment unjustifiably gave“precedence to economic considerations overbasic health conditions”. One small butpositive feature to emerge was the formalrecognition of ‘environmental human rights’in an ECHR judgment for the first time ever.

So who really profits from night flights?Namely the aviation industry, and in particularBritish Airways. It is therefore not sosurprising that British Airways joined thecourt case on the side of the government.Their hypocrisy is surprising, however, as seenin their advertisements for their Club Worldpassengers: ‘Don’t Stand for Sleepless Nights’and ‘Sleep deprivation causes memory loss,muddled thinking, visual impairment andmemory loss’. Yes, precisely. One rule for bigbusiness and its first class passengers, andanother for everyone else.

more information:Friends of the Earth England, Wales andNorthern Ireland:www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/transport/

foei | 15

“Sleep deprivation causes

memory loss, muddled

thinking, visual impairment

and memory loss.”British Airways advertisement for its Club World service.

© k

fem

/foe

sou

th k

orea

16 | foei

the right to remaina wetlandsaemangeum campaign in south koreanears victorykfem/friends of the earth south korea

Friends of the Earth South Korea has beencampaigning to stop the destruction of one ofthe planet’s most important and ecologicallydiverse tidal flats for many years, and victory isfinally in sight.

Saemangeum is the country’s largestreclamation project, involving theconstruction of a seawall damming themouths of two rivers. The existing tidal flats,part of Korea’s beautiful coastline, and animportant wetlands area will be reclaimed inorder to create agricultural land and anindustrial complex. As currently planned, theproject will encompass some 41,000 hectaresand will include a 33-kilometer long seawall.

When finished, some 22,000 local fishingpeople will be deprived of their subsistenceactivities. Many nearby islands andmountains, some even in national reserves,have been destroyed in order to supply soiland stone to construct the seawall and coverthe tidal flat.

At least 200,000 shorebirds use Saemangeumas a feeding stop on the East Asian-Australasian flyway every year, includingendangered species such as the Black-facedspoonbill, the Oystercatcher and Saunder’s gull.



© k

fem

/foe

sou

th k

orea

Activists have their heads shaved in front of the President's residence to protest against the Saemangeum wetlands reclamation project.

The 310-kilometer "3 steps 1 bow" protest

march crossing the HanRiver bridge in Seoul.

© k

fem

/foe

sou

th k

orea

© k

fem

/foe

sou

th k

orea

foei | 17

steps, bows and shaved heads

Some 86 percent of South Korean citizens areagainst the plan, and their resistance hasbeen demonstrated in many colorful andpassionate demonstrations. In 2003, fourreligious leaders carried out a ‘3 steps 1 bow’walk over a distance of 310 kilometers. Thirty-three Friends of the Earth South Koreaactivists shaved their heads in symbolicprotest, and directors of the organizationwent on a ten-day hunger strike.

In November 2002, local people andenvironmental groups including Friends of theEarth South Korea took the government tocourt. In July 2003, the Seoul AdministrativeCourt ordered the temporary suspension ofSaemangeum in light of the massiveenvironmental damage that is feared toresult. Friends of the Earth is not letting up thepressure, however, and is calling for therestoration of the tidal flats to their originalcondition so that fisher people can resumetheir livelihoods and birds can flock back tothe wetlands.

more information:Friends of the Earth South Korea:http://english.kfem.or.kr

Leaders from South Korea's major religions (Buddhism, Protestantism, Catholicism, and Won Buddhism) lead a protest against the Saemangeum wetlands reclamation project.

The "3 steps 1 bow"protest march.

18 | foei

fumigatingcolombiaan attack on human and environmental rightscensat/friends of the earth colombia

Although Colombians have obtained manyrights, including the constitutional right to ahealthy environment, justice remains out ofreach. One striking example is the ongoingfumigation of crops destined for illegal usewith Monsanto’s Roundup Ready herbicide,which has destroyed important ecosystemsand has seriously violated the rights ofcommunities and the environment.

The government’s aerial spraying of cropsintended for illegal use (marijuana, coca, and morerecently poppy) with the herbicide glysophate, a‘poison rain’ marketed by Monsanto, has beengoing on for more than three decades. Howeverthe recent, increased fumigation is part of astrategy against drug trafficking adopted by theUS and Colombian governments that focuses onthe weakest link in the process: the growers. Thus,those who suffer most in this war are the farmers,the indigenous peoples, the Afro-Colombiancommunities, their cultures and their ecosystems.

As environmentalists, Friends of the EarthColombia believes that the illegal productionof coca has contributed to the seriousdegradation of the Andes and Amazon forests.However, the spraying of glysophate by low-flying planes only stimulates this degradation,not only through the unknown effects of thechemicals on the ecosystem, but by forcingthe growers into the forest where the impactsof fumigation are even more damaging.Friends of the Earth is convinced that fightingone evil with another is pointless.



© c

ensa

t/fo

e co

lom

bia

© c

ensa

t/fo

e co

lom

bia

© c

ensa

t/fo

e co

lom

bia

foei | 19

plan colombia

Colombia’s anti-narcotics policy has the strongbacking of the US government. In July of 2000,President Clinton approved US$1.3 billion for a‘war on drugs’ within the framework of PlanColombia, which was allegedly intended toincrease national security and decreaseconflict in the country. Despite an enormousincrease in fumigation, the strategy yieldedmeager results, with a mere 11 percentdecrease in coca crops in 2000-1.

During the second phase of Plan Colombia,which coincided with the entry into power ofPresident Alvaro Uribe Vélez, more than250,000 thousand hectares of coca and poppywere sprayed. According to official figures, thishas led to a reduction of 37 percent of crops;the reality however is that the fumigation hasnot contributed to diminishing crops. A recentreport by the United Nations Office on Drugsand Crimes showed the greatest decreases inareas that had not been fumigated. This raisesthe question of why the governmentcontinues to fumigate, and whom thisstrategy benefits.

attacking public and environmental health

Farmers in the fumigated areas and someindigenous communities bear the brunt ofthis strategy, and have continuously called forthe replacement of spraying by manualeradication. Indigenous communities insistthat their traditional lands, as well as thecultural importance they place on the earthand the coca plant, be respected.

Local governments, environmental groups andhuman rights organizations have campaignedand taken legal action to stop the fumigation.The national government has refused to

comply with two Constitutional Court ordersthat the spraying be stopped, and has notcarried out any of the required social orenvironmental impact assessments. In turn,Monsanto continues to insist that glysophatehas no adverse impacts on human health orthe environment.

The emerging evidence about the impacts offumigation on human and environmentalhealth is alarming. Medical experts in southernColombia, which has been sprayed liberally,report high incidences of ocular and cutaneousafflictions, as well as the death of livestock andpoultry. Ecuadorian investigations based on theborder area with Colombia have found cases ofover-stimulated central nervous systems, whichcauses headaches, nightmares, nausea,vomiting, stomachaches and weakness.Glysophate also causes strong eye and skinirritation, matching reports by Colombians inthe Putamayo region with these symptoms.

Although the fumigation is intended to destroycrops for illegal use, it knows no borders andhas also impacted farmers’ subsistence crops,water sources, indigenous lands, and Afro-Colombian communities. Forests andbiodiversity have been destroyed, as glysophateis poisonous to most plant species. In short, thepoison is affecting every link in the food chain,with the end result of harming human health.

Since its inception, Plan Colombia and inparticular the fumigation strategy hasprovoked great social opposition. A recentgovernmental decision to fumigate nationalparks, including the globally-recognizedUNESCO biosphere reserve La Sierra Nevadade Santa Marta, has provoked fierce reactionsfrom a Park Defense group made up ofacademics, journalists, parliamentarians,environmentalists and human rights activists.

Friends of the Earth Colombia is opposed to thefumigation on the basis of the precautionaryprinciple, which says that “when an activityraises threats of harm to human health or theenvironment, precautionary measures should betaken even if some cause and effectrelationships are not fully establishedscientifically.” We are also on the alert for a newwave of fumigation using fungus, which couldpotentially be even more dangerous.

The rights that have been won today do notyet guarantee justice, and this is why otherrights must be claimed: the right to not bedisplaced; the right to not be fumigated; andthe right to protect indigenous reserves andthe environment against destroyers likeMonsanto. The fumigations must be stoppedtoday, because very soon it will be too late.

more information:Friends of the Earth Colombia:www.censat.org (in Spanish)

© c

ensa

t/fo

e co

lom

bia

© c

ensa

t/fo

e co

lom

bia

Water is becoming dirtier, scarcer and costlierfor people in many parts of the world. Bigdams, pollution, deforestation, industrializedagriculture and mining are all part of theproblem, and the international financialinstitutions, trade treaties and multinationalwater corporations that promote theprivatization of water services are decreasingpeople’s access to water.

Friends of the Earth International believesthat water is a fundamental human right as itis essential to livelihoods, and it should not be

treated as an economic good. Friends of theEarth groups are campaigning for waterjustice by promoting collective watermanagement systems, urging waterreduction and reuse, restoring rivers andwetlands to more natural states, and resistingthe privatization of public water sources.

In the face of a global corporate push toprivatize water sources, communities areresisting the violation of their water rights invarious creative ways. In Cochabamba, Bolivia,massive public uprisings led to thewithdrawal of the government’s waterprivatization law and forced an unwelcome

water company to leave the country. InSlovakia, public water services in the city ofTrencin are being privatized without publicinvolvement, fuelling Friends of the Earth’scampaign against corporate water secrecy. Toprotect the right to water for futuregenerations, Friends of the Earth Uruguay hasco-initiated a procedure for constitutionalreform that would make access to water afundamental human right.

more information:Friends of the Earth International:www.foei.org/waterWater Justice: www.waterjustice.org

3 the right to water

20 | foei

water for the peopleprivatization gone bad in cochabambacer-det/friends of the earth bolivia

Neoliberal economic globalization, pushed bythe US government and transnationalcorporations, is leading to the privatization ofservices, natural resources and practicallyevery economic activity in Bolivia. This ishappening quickly, and without properconsultation. Water, which has until now beenmanaged by rural communities, farmers andindigenous peoples, is being handed over tocorporations that aim to place every dropunder the laws of the market.

the case of cochabamba

In 1999, the Bolivian government privatizedthe city of Cochabamba’s municipal waterservices and handed them over to the Aguasdel Tunari consortium, which consisted ofInternational Water Limited (50% owned byEdison SpA from Italy and Bechtel from theUS); the Spanish company Abengoa (25%);and four Bolivian investors.

Aguas del Tunari immediately raised the priceof drinking water by about 300 percent. In themeantime, the government approved theprivatization of all drinking water services andwater resources such as rivers and lakes. Theconvergence of these events triggered amobilization of communities in theCochabamba valley.



© t

om k

ruse

foei | 21

Farmers, rural workers, environmentalists,students and other social groups cametogether in the Coordination for the Defenseof Water and Life and carried out daily actionssuch as road blockades, demonstrations andstrikes. This culminated in April of 2000 with amassive rally, which ended in several deathsand numerous injuries.

Ultimately, the people of Cochabamba werevictorious in not only driving the company outof the country, but also in having the plannedprivatization law withdrawn. The contractwith Aguas del Tunari was annulled, andwater management was given to a publiccooperative.

unhappy water giant

Aguas del Tunari responded by launchingvarious actions in order to receivecompensation for so-called “incurred losses”.In November 2001, the company claimedUS$25 million from the Bolivian governmentto make up for the loss of revenue incurredwith the cancellation of the contract. The case,which is pending, will be heard by a tribunalwith three members: someone chosen by theWorld Bank President, someone chosen by thetransnational corporation, and someonechosen by the Bolivian government.

Cochabamba’s ‘war on water’ provides strikingevidence of corporate power, but above all it isan inspiring example of the power held bypeople when they unite in order to defendtheir basic rights.

more information:Water Justice: www.waterjustice.orgFriends of the Earth Bolivia:[email protected]

© n

otic

ias

“In a poor country like Bolivia, the US$25 million

claimed by the transnational company could

mean 125,000 water connections in

Cochabamba, or 3,000 annual doctors’ salaries in

rural areas, or 12,000 annual teachers’ salaries.”Osvaldo Pareja, Cochabamba.

Protest against Cochabamba privatization in the Netherlands: “Water is for the people, not the multinationals”.

© f

oe s

lova

kia

22 | foei

thirsty forinformation in slovakia public shut out of water privatization plansfriends of the earth slovakia

In 1998, shortly before the elections in which itwas replaced by a new cabinet, the Slovakiangovernment decided to privatize water servicesin the city of Trencin in the western part of thecountry. This was the first case of public servicesprivatization in Slovakia, and according to officialstatements it was intended to serve as a “modelof water sector transformation”.

In fact, what happened was that a municipally-owned company, TVK, took charge of the waterpipes and sewers, while everything else requiredfor water services, including buildings, machinesand vehicles, was transferred to TVS, a privatefirm that had been established by managers ofthe former state water company. The Frenchmultinational Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux thenacquired majority control in TVS. This division ofproperty between private and municipalcompanies forced the municipal company TVK tosign an operational contract with TVS in order toprevent the collapse of water services in the area.

Although the Slovakian parliament hasadopted a very progressive Access toInformation Act, the challenge remains forcivil society to enforce the ‘right to know’ inpractice. For example, water and sewageservices are by law considered ‘services in thepublic interest’, but authorities have provenreluctant to release information related totheir provision.

fishing for information

Information was later divulged indicating thatthe conditions imposed by TVS wereextremely disadvantageous for TVK, and thatthe huge profits included for TVS in thecontract could lead to an enormous increasein water and sewage rates. Friends of theEarth Slovakia made an official request for thefull text of the operational contract to the cityof Trencin, a major shareholder in TVK. Themunicipality passed the request along to thedirector of TVK, who refused to comply ongrounds of commercial secrecy. Friends of theEarth asked the same of the private operatorTVS, receiving the same negative response.

In 2000, TVK was awarded a grant from theEuropean Commission’s ISPA program for theextension of the sewage system and theconstruction of a water treatment plant. Itwas not until 2002 that the Commissionbegan to investigate whether or not Trencin’sprivatized water operations met the criteriafor the ISPA program, and particularly whetherthe risk existed that the grant couldcontribute to undue profits for the privateoperator. Although the Commission insistedthat TVK and TVS modify the contract, itignored requests by Friends of the EarthSlovakia for its public release. The Commissionin turn referred Friends of the Earth to theSlovak Ministry of Environment, whichclaimed that TVK declared the contract to be atrade secret. The Ministry of Environmentclosed the circle by recommending that TVK or

TVS be asked for the information, and to datethe contract remains hidden from public eyes.

The Slovakian Access to Information Actobliges the responsible authorities to discloseinformation related to public property orpublic finances, and explicitly states thatrevealing such information does not breachcommercial secrecy. Nevertheless, corporatewater services are very often put above therights of those seeking information. The caseis not yet closed, however: in January 2004,Friends of the Earth Slovakia filed a complaintto the Slovak Supreme Court.



© f

oe s

lova

kia


foei | 23


© r

edes

/foe

uru

guay

© r

edes

/foe

uru

guay

water as aconstitutional rightin uruguay?redes/friends of the earth uruguay

In October 2003, a ‘human river’ organized byFriends of the Earth Uruguay and other socialand environmental groups delivered a petitionof 280,000 signatures to the UruguayanParliament. The petition launched a procedurefor constitutional reform that will be voted on,simultaneous to the national elections, on 31October 2004. The proposed reform wouldhalt and reverse the privatization of drinkingwater services and the commodification andsale of the country’s fresh water reserves,including the Guarani Aquifer, one of the mostimportant on the planet. The reform wouldalso guarantee the public, participatory andsustainable management of the country’swater resources.

If adopted, the reform would make access towater a fundamental human right and aconstitutional right. This right would thuseven be protected from erosion through freetrade and investment agreements such as

those in the World Trade Organization, theFree Trade Area of the Americas and otherbilateral and regional agreements.

The constitutional reform proposal hasbecome the hottest political issue in thecountry, with the government and affectedand interested corporations trying toundermine widespread public supportthrough a massive media misinformationcampaign.

more information:Friends of the Earth Uruguay:www.redes.org.uy (in Spanish)

Friends of the Earth International believesthat people have the right to decide what theygrow and what they eat. Just as we should beable to decide what we put on our tables,farmers and communities should also havethe right to grow the crops they choose fortheir own food security and sustainablelivelihoods. In Costa Rica, for example,although farmers have rehabilitated theforests and water sources previously degradedby banana plantations, they are still strugglingto keep the Standard Fruit Company fromconfiscating their homes and croplands.

Friends of the Earth has serious and legitimateconcerns about the risks of geneticallymodified foods and crops (GMOs) forconsumers, farmers, wildlife andenvironments around the world. In Mexico,the center of origin for maize, biologicaldiversity and food security are threatened bycontamination by genetically-modified crops.Our Bite Back campaign challenges attemptsby the United States and others to preventcountries from deciding whether or not toallow genetically modified food and farming.

Farmers’ rights, based on the “past, presentand future contributions of farmers inconserving, improving, and making availableplant genetic resources, particularly those inthe centres of origin/diversity” (Food andAgriculture Organization) are increasinglygaining recognition. However these rights arealso increasingly threatened, not only bygenetic contamination, but also byIntellectual Property Rights, which allowcorporations to privatize the knowledgeshared between farmers over generations.

more information:Genetically Modified Crops: A Decade ofFailure, Friends of the Earth International:www.foei.org/publications/link/gmoGRAIN: www.grain.orgAction Group on Erosion, Technology andConcentration (ETC): www.etc.org

4 the right to foodsafety and security

24 | foei

costa rican farmersbamboozled bybanana company coecoceiba/friends of the earth costa rica

In 1967, the government of Costa Rica sold10,000 hectares in one of the most fertile andbiodiverse regions in the country to theStandard Fruit Company for the ridiculousamount of 1,000 colons (US$2). Thistransaction reaffirmed the submission ofmost Costa Rican governments totransnational capital.

The Standard Fruit Company devoted themajority of these lands to banana cultivation,and the rest to growing the bamboo used toprop up the banana trees. As a result, thissmall area was called ‘Bambuzal’. Althoughtechnological change in the 1990s made thebamboo unnecessary, the banana companycontinued to exert its dominion over the 875hectares where it was formerly grown.

Years ago, farmers occupied Bambuzal withthe rationale that this area was not includedin the 10,000 hectares that the Costa Ricangovernment donated to Standard at the endof the 1960s. Campesinos and campesinashave since created a subsistence economythere that has enabled them to improve theirquality of life. They have also preserved theirown tree species, and protected several watersources. After some years had passed, theyasked the Costa Rica agrarian courts to grantthem titles to this land.

this land is my land!

Before sweeping the land out from under thefarmers’ feet, Standard waged various battlesto intimidate them and to delay the verdict.Eventually they sold part of the land toanother transnational to be used forelectricity production; this was illegal becausethe land was still tied up in litigation.Standard also engaged in other maneuversinvolving foreign banks in an attempt tocomplicate the legal ownership of the land.

Eventually Standard brought criminal chargesagainst the farmers, claiming that they hadusurped the land. In collaboration with theCosta Rican government, the companycontracted private security forces and publicpolice to harass the farmers using force,repression and tear gas. Two farmers died: oneasphyxiated and the other shot five times inthe back.

The farmers, counting on a quick verdict, haveinstead witnessed the government’s unfailingsupport for the banana corporation as the caselanguishes in court. They are denouncing theireviction from land that was legally declaredtheirs to cultivate until a judgement wasreached, and lamenting the burning of theirfarms, the destruction of their crops, and theindiscriminate cutting of trees by the bananacompany.

The right to land is a fundamental humanright for farmers, who produce food, manageresources sustainably and create models forgreater social justice and better wealthdistribution. This right is a traditional andcollective one that has long been defended byfarmers around the world. In this case, truejustice will be served only when the land isreturned to those who make the best use of it:the farmers of Bambuzal.



© t

ania

du

nst

er

© g

reen

pea

ce/l

ópez

© k

ees

kod

de,

foe

net

her

lan

ds

“Our seeds, our corn, are the

basis of the food sovereignty

of our communities. It’s more

than a food, it’s part of what

we consider sacred, of our

history, of our present

and future.”Pedro, indigenous community member in

Chihuahua, Mexico.

mexican farmersthreatened by gmocontamination action group on erosion, technology and

concentration



foei | 25

Mexico is the center of origin of maize, wherethe greatest diversity of this crop is found.Since GM crops were first commercialized inthe United States, there have been manyconcerns in neighboring Mexico about thepossible contamination of Mexican corn. Cornvarieties have been developed by indigenousand local farmer communities over thousandsof years, and corn is one of the key reserves ofgenetic material for plant breeding, the basis

of food security. Maize diversity is key forfarmer communities and plant breeders, andis needed for improving the quality andproductivity of corn crops worldwide. Mexicoalso hosts the world’s most importantcollection of endangered corn seeds.

In 2001, the area in the US cultivated with GMcorn was over 20 million acres, constitutingover 50 percent of all corn cultivated in thecountry. Many cases of transboundarycontamination have shown that illegal GMOscan easily cross boundaries and end up inother countries. StarLink corn for instanceended up contaminating the food supplies inJapan, South Korea, and Bolivia.

In 2001, Nature magazine reported thattraditional maize varieties in two Mexicanstates, Oaxaca and Puebla, werecontaminated with DNA from geneticallymodified maize. It is illegal to cultivate GMmaize in Mexico.

The suspected source of the contamination isthe United States, since it exports largequantities of maize for food and feedpurposes to Mexico. It is believed thatMexican farmers planted US GM maizeintended for food and feed without knowing itwas genetically modified.

Despite the seriousness of the contamination,there still is no clear plan of action to address thisgenetic pollution, nor to prevent it fromhappening again. Moreover, monitoring done bycivil society organizations in over 130 localcommunities in Mexico found that contaminationoccurred in nine states, seven more than the initialresearch showed. The organizations also claim tohave identified StarLink GM maize, which is notauthorized as food.

more information:Action Group on Erosion, Technology andConcentration (ETC): www.etc.org

Mexican maize varieties, Oaxaca, Mexico.

26 | foei

bite back! thousands call for food safety friends of the earth international

More than 70 percent of citizens in theEuropean Union do not want geneticallymodified organisms (GMOs) in their food.However, US President George Bush and bigbiotech companies are trying to use the WorldTrade Organization (WTO) to force the EU andthe rest of the world to accept geneticallymodified food and farming. This is a graveviolation of people’s right to decide what theywant to eat and of farmers’ rights to grow thecrops they choose.

Biotech companies have invested billions inGMO products with potentially harmfulimpacts on human health and theenvironment. Such products take awayconsumer choice, make farmers dependent onbig business, and undermine food security indeveloping countries. It is not yet known whatrisks GMOs pose to people’s health and theenvironment.

To force genetically modified products intoglobal markets, President Bush filed a legaldispute at the WTO, accusing the EuropeanUnion of blocking trade by restricting GMOs. Ifsuccessful, not only will the EU have to acceptgenetically modified food and farming but sowill the rest of the world.

In response, Friends of the Earth Internationaland more than 350 other organizations –together representing 35 million citizensworldwide – launched the ‘Bite Back’campaign. This initiative invites civil societyaround the world to submit Citizens’Objections to the WTO, demanding that theright to eat GMO-free food not beundermined and that the US complaint bedismissed. The first 100,000 Citizens’Objections were handed over to the WTO inMay 2004. A final ruling in the case isexpected in 2005.

more information:Friends of the Earth International Bite Backcampaign: www.bite-back.orgFriends of the Earth Europe:www.foeeurope.org/biteback/index.htmFriends of the Earth International GMOcampaign: www.foei.org/gmo/index.html



© f

oe e

uro

pe

© f

oe e

uro

pe

In May 2004, Friends of the Earth campaigners declared a bio-hazard' area around the WTO's headquarters in Geneva in protest of the WTO dispute over geneticallymodified food. They delivered a petition to the WTO signed by more than 100,000 citizens from 90 countries and some 544 organizations representing 48 million people.

foei | 27

1. collective rights

2. the right to know

3. the right to decide

4. the right to resist

part two | information, participation and security

© s

chel

tem

a/gr

een

pea

ce

Landowner Sakas Aonomo at a log camp in Middle Fly, Western Province, Papua New Guinea. “By looking at that place I feel very sad and upset and frustrated about my land being destroyed.”

1 collective rights collectivities including indigenous and blackcommunities, farmers and local people, andthis invaluable contribution to globalsustainability must be recognized.

In South Australia, a group of SeniorAboriginal Women have won the collectiveright to protect their land and their culturefrom a radioactive waste dump. They havereceived international recognition for theirdetermination to “look after their country” inorder to pass it along to future generations.The Dayak Pitap of Indonesia are campaigningagainst the appropriation of their ancestrallands by a mining corporation, proving thattheir self-determination as a people is moreimportant than any profits that can be dugfrom the land.

been invoked in the struggles of the NukakMakuk, Uwa and Embera people.

Collective rights are intergenerational. Landrights must be understood from thisperspective, as present generations haveinherited the territory of previous ones, andare obliged to pass it on to future generations.For that reason, indigenous territory shouldnot be classified as property but rather asinheritance or patrimony. In the cosmic visionof many indigenous peoples, territory is notonly a physical space but also whereproductive systems like fishing, hunting,agriculture, extractive activities and so forthare carried out in a self-reliant manner.

Collective rights over biodiversity are theresult of the preservation and maintenance ofknowledge, innovations and other practicesbased in nature. The conservation andsustainable use of biological diversity isincorporated into the traditional lifestyles of

The concept of collective rights emergedbecause individual human rights do notguarantee adequate protection for indigenouspeoples and other minorities exhibitingcollective characteristics. These groups facevarious threats to their livelihoods, to theirenvironments, to their health and to theirsecurity, and their very survival may dependupon the recognition and protection of theircollective rights.

Collective rights guarantee the developmentand preservation of ethnic minorities’ culturalidentities and forms of organizations. A fewexisting legal instruments recognize theserights, including Convention 169 of theInternational Labor Organization and thepolitical constitutions of several nationsincluding Colombia, Bolivia and Ecuador. InColombia for example, collective rights have

28 | foei

indonesia’s dayakpitap want to beleft alonefriends of the earth indonesia

The Dayak Pitap are a small group of fewerthan 900 people living in the Meratusmountains of South Kalimantan, Indonesia.They live mainly through small-scaleagriculture and rubber tapping, and also raisepoultry, hunt boar and fish. For years, theyhave been plagued by the forestry and miningindustries, which continue to pose enormousthreats to their livelihoods and the localenvironment. They are determined, however,to manage their own livelihoods andenvironment without external interference.

South Kalimantan is blessed with naturalresources including forests and coal, and hasthus long been viewed by governments,Indonesian companies, foreign corporationsand national security forces as a financial‘cash cow’. In the 15-year period between1984 and 1999, more than 100 million tons ofcoal were produced in the province, with anaverage annual production of 7.7 million tons.

trickle up resource exploitation

Only a few have enjoyed the benefits of theseriches, however, and communities havewatched their environment degrading with nosignificant improvement in their welfare.Bulldozers, excavators, and dump trucks worknight and day to exploit the land, while localpeople observe from the sidelines from withina cloud of ashes and dust.

two information, participation and security

1 collective rights

foei | 29

The Dayak Pitap have been defending theirrights to the environment and their livelihoodssince the early 1990s, when they started feelingpressure from the logging and miningindustries. As a response, they began to promotecommunity-based forest management as analternative to the private concession system.Large-scale private land concessions areresponsible for environmental disastersthroughout Indonesia, including flooding,community intimidation, social conflict and theerosion of traditional knowledge and wisdom.

Despite these efforts, the local governmentsigned an agreement worth around US$10million with the PT Sari Bumi Sinar Karya miningcompany. The Dayak Pitap are united against theplan to open an iron ore mine in thecommunity’s sacred land, which spans twomountains. For the indigenous community, thisarea has long been used as a place of worshipand as the final resting place for their ancestors.

taking control of the future

In response, the Dayak Pitap have drafted theirown proposals for the local government onhow to manage their natural resources, howto preserve their local customs andknowledge, and how to maintain socialcommunities. They have also undertakenparticipatory mapping to delineate theirterritories and secure their rights, attendedmeetings with the local parliament, andlobbied local and national governments toprotect and fulfill their rights to theirlivelihoods.

The Dayak Pritap, by making use of their rightto say “no, thanks” to companies,governments and other stakeholders, havebeen an inspiration for other communitygroups in Indonesia seeking to protect theirrights. They believe if the community unites,nothing can beat them.

more information:Friends of the Earth Indonesia:www.walhi.or.id

© w

alh

i/fo

e in

don

esia

© f

oe a

ust

ralia

© f

oe a

ust

ralia

30 | foei

the poison, leave itaboriginal women win battle againstaustralian governmentnina brown, irati wanti campaign office, coober

pedy, south australia

The Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta are a council ofSenior Aboriginal Women based in CooberPedy, South Australia. They came together inthe early 1990s to “keep the culture strong andlook after [their] country”. They follow theirTjukur, variously translated as ‘Dreaming’ or‘Law’, which tells the story of the Seven Sisterswho traveled across the country, creating it.

In recent years, the Kungka Tjuta have traveledtirelessly across the continent to resist afederal government proposal for a nationalradioactive waste dump in the desert. TheKungka Tjuta have spearheaded a nationalenvironmental campaign in opposition to thewaste dump. Their campaign is called IratiWanti: “the poison, leave it”. In their words,“We know the country. The poison thegovernment is talking about will poison theland. We say NO radioactive dump in ourngura - in our country. It’s strictly poison andwe don’t want it.”

In 2003, the government granted finalapproval for the waste dump. Significantly, itwas also the 50th anniversary of Australia’sentry in the global nuclear industry. Between1953 and 1963, a series of British atomicweapons were detonated in the SouthAustralian desert. The Kungka Tjuta aresurvivors of this nuclear testing program, andpoint to the deadly connection between pastexperiences and the present radioactive wastedump proposal. “All of us were living when thegovernment used the country for the bomb,”says Eileen Wani Wingfield. “When they letthe bomb off nobody knew anything about it.They are doing the same thing here. They toldus you could eat the kangaroo, the emu, but ...that was a lie.”


1 collective rights

Kungka Tjuta women holding the Goldman Prize they were awarded in 2003 in recognition oftheir campaign against a radioactive waste dump in the Australian desert.

“You don’t listen to us ladies. You’re still not listening. Do we have to talk over and

over? It’s women’s place. Stop mucking around with women’s business. It’s our

story to know for all Kungkas. Not a story for you white men. Not your land, even

if you say you own it. Even if you buy it.”The Kungka Tjuta in a letter to the Australian government, 2004.

foei | 31

The Kungka Tjuta have achieved nationalrecognition and widespread support for theirIrati Wanti campaign. The South Australiangovernment is actively opposed to the wastedump construction, as are 87 percent of SouthAustralians polled, and numerouscommunities along the proposed transportcorridor are also resisting the plan.

The Kungka Tjuta’s resolve receivedinternational recognition in 2003 with theawarding of the prestigious internationalGoldman Environmental Prize to foundingmembers Eileen Kampakuta Brown and EileenWani Wingfield. The annual prize is given tograssroots environmental “heroes” from sixgeographic areas across the globe, and is thelargest of its kind. In a joint statement issuedafter the announcement of the prize the paircommented, “We all have to get together andlook after this country. … We are strong, oldladies. We will keep fighting.”

government trickery

A few months later, the federal governmentcompulsorily appropriated the land for theproposed waste dump. This occurred onlyhours before the South Australian parliamentwas due to table legislation declaring the sitea public park, which would have foiled theplanned land seizure. The South Australiangovernment took the case to court; it wasdismissed, but won by unanimous decisionupon appeal. The massive publicity catalyzedby the court decision has been a severe blowfor the “national interest” reasoning spoutedby the government, and politically humiliatingin an election year.

Finally, in August 2004, the Irati Wanticampaign met with victory when theAustralian government abandoned its plansfor the nuclear waste dump. The KungkaTjuta's determination to see their strugglethrough was not in vain: “We’re here to lookafter the country. We’re not going to liveforever. If we do the right thing to help theyounger generation, they’ll turn around andfight for the protection of their country intheir turn.”

more information:Irati Wanti campaign: [email protected]

2 the right to know contribution of the country’s Export CreditAgencies to climate change. In the UnitedStates, groups including Friends of the Earthare calling for an International Right to Knowrequirement, which would force companies toreveal environmental, labor and human rightsinformation about their overseas operations.

International financial institutions arenotoriously non-transparent and non-participatory in their operations. In Slovakia,Friends of the Earth is working with people inthe town of Ruzomberok to require theEuropean Investment Bank to address theenvironmental and social impacts of itsfunding for a polluting paper mill.

People have the right to play an active role inprotecting their environments, and access toinformation is key to securing this right. Thereis a great deal of secrecy surrounding theactivities of corporations and their financialbackers around the world. Governments toooften collude with these schemes to keepillegal, unethical or simply unpopular projectsand processes away from public scrutiny.

In response, communities and individuals arecalling for information disclosure whenactivities impact the environment or people.Campaigners and citizens are making use of‘right to know’ provisions on the national andinternational levels; for example, Friends ofthe Earth Germany is suing their governmentfor refusing to release information about the

32 | foei

the right to knowwho wrecks theclimate german government sued for non-transparencyfriends of the earth germany

Germany claims to be a leader in climatepolicy. Although this may be true in terms ofthe energy measures being taken on thenational level, what about the impact ofGerman technology exports? After all,Germany is responsible for one third of globalexports in the mining sector, and has hugemarket shares in power plants, cars, airplanesand public transport systems. In this way,German exports help to determine the extentto which future global energy infrastructurewill be climate-friendly or unfriendly.

Guarantees from Export Credit Agencies (ECAs)insure companies against economic andpolitical risks they may face particularly indeveloping countries. The German ECA,Hermes, provides billions of dollars of fundingfor energy, mining and transport projectsaround the world on behalf of the Germantaxpayer. These projects give rise to greenhousegas emissions that cause climate change.


2 the right to know

© n

ick

cob

bin

g, f

oe e

wn

i

“Environmental openness is

an inalienable human right.

Any attempt to conceal any

information about harmful

impact on people and the

environment is a crime

against humanity.”Russian environmental activist Alexandr Nikitin,

who was charged with espionage for contributing

to a report that exposed illegal nuclear waste

dumping.

Friends of the Earthdemonstration in the UKagainst the Baku-Ceyhanpipeline, which is funded by theGerman Export Credit Agency.

© m

anan

a ko

chla

dze

© n

ick

cob

bin

g, f

oe e

wn

i©

nic

k co

bb

ing

, foe

ew

ni

foei | 33

A lack of transparency makes it impossible toassess exactly what contribution ECA-fundedprojects have made to climate change. TheWorld Resources Institute (WRI) estimatesthat between 1996 and 2001, Hermespromoted fossil projects in developingcountries that totalled US$2 billion. Forexample, Hermes has supported supplies forthe construction of Paiton 2, a disputed coal-fired power station in Indonesia; more than400 kilometers of pipes for the controversialBaku-Tiblisi-Ceyhan pipeline; and aircraft forthe airbus industry in the US, Sweden andSaudi Arabia.

For many years, Friends of the Earth Germanyand Germanwatch have been requestinginformation from the Ministry for Economicsand Labor about exports that might becontributing to climate change. Invoking thenational Environmental Information Act, thegroups asked Hermes to publish a detailed listcontaining all of the projects in the field ofenergy production for which exportguarantees were granted since the adoptionof the Kyoto Protocol in 1997.

The Ministry ultimately rejected the request,claiming exemption from the EnvironmentalInformation Act and that publishing certaindata would violate business secrecy. Inresponse, Friends of the Earth andGermanwatch filed a lawsuit in June 2004,accusing the Ministry of violating theEnvironmental Information Act. The outcomeof this case could set an interesting precedentfor other industrialized countries with ECAsinvolved in the export of climate-damagingtechnologies.

more information:Climate Justice Programme:www.climatelaw.orgGermanwatch: www.germanwatch.orgClimateLawsuit.org: www.climatelawsuit.org

Frie

nds

of

the

Eart

h d

emon

stra

tion

in t

he

UK

agai

nst

the

Baku

-Cey

han

pipe

line,

wh

ich

is f

un

ded

by t

he

Ger

man

Exp

ort

Cre

dit

Age

ncy

.

Oil port near the Baku platform where the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline originates.

34 | foei

the right to know,at home andabroadfriends of the earth united states

Shortly after midnight on December 3rd, 1984, oneof the world’s worst industrial disasters unfolded inBhopal, India. Over 40 tons of lethal gases leakedfrom a pesticide factory owned and operated by anAmerican company, the Union CarbideCorporation, now owned by the Dow Corporation.The streets of Bhopal were filled with the bodies ofthousands of victims, many of whom sufferedviolent deaths. Today, thousands of people still livewith debilitating health effects. By some estimates,the death toll has risen to 16,000 or more.

In the United States, the Bhopal accident led tothe creation of the Emergency Planning andCommunity Right to Know Act, which waspassed by Congress in 1986. This law requirescorporations to report important environmental,health and safety information to theEnvironmental Protection Agency, which is thenmade available to the public in a user-friendlydatabase called the Toxic Release Inventory.

The Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) has providedcitizens, communities and investors in theUnited States with critical information thathas led to significant voluntary reductions oftoxic pollution and other environmental

hazards. For example, information disclosedunder TRI was used by citizens to convinceIBM to phase out its use ofchlorofluorocarbons – the main culprit indepleting the ozone layer. It allowed a groupof citizens in Akron, Ohio to obtain acommitment from tire manufacturer BFGoodrich to reduce its toxic airborneemissions by 70 percent. TRI also gavecommunities in Oregon and Louisiana theinformation they needed to successfully enacttoxics reduction statutes.

corporate secrecy overseas

However, American companies operatingabroad are not required to disclose informationthat they must reveal when they operate in theUS. This lack of disclosure has allowed many USmultinationals to conceal irresponsible ordisgraceful behavior, such as treating workers

poorly, destroying the environment, andcollaborating with oppressive governmentsthat violate human rights.

The International Right to Know (IRTK)legislative proposal is modeled on the highlysuccessful US Right to Know regulatoryrequirements. Under IRTK, Americancompanies and companies listed on any of theUS stock exchanges will be required todisclose key environmental, labor, and humanrights information about their operationsabroad, such as:

• How much toxic pollution does the companyrelease into the environment?

• What dangerous chemicals are employeesexposed to?

• Were communities forcibly relocated toaccommodate the company?

• Has there been sexual harassment ordiscrimination in the work place?

• Does the company use child labor?

• Does the company have secret agreementswith security forces such as foreign militaries?

• Have there been any serious emergenciescaused by chemical releases at their facilities?

• How many of their workers abroad arecovered by collective bargaining agreements?

Under IRTK, companies will be required tomake annual reports to the US Department ofState. This information will then be provided

to the public through a consolidated websiteon the Internet. Companies that fail to reportor make inaccurate reports could face legalprosecution in the US as well as criminal andcivil penalties. Likewise, private citizens andorganizations will be able to file lawsuitsagainst companies for non-compliance.

An IRTK law would lift the veil of secrecysurrounding the overseas operations ofAmerican-owned corporations. Moreimportantly, information disclosed under IRTKwould empower people to more effectivelychallenge the harmful impacts they face,while consumers and investors incorporations’ home countries could choose toredirect their purchases or investments awayfrom harmful corporate practices.

more information:Friends of the Earth US International Right toKnow campaign: www.foe.org/irtk.


2 the right to know

© k

eith

sla

ck, o

xfam

am

eric

a

Doe Run smelter in Peru. Doe Run is the biggest polluter in the US state of Missouri, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency.

something smellsaround here…european investment bank ignoresright to knowfriends of the earth slovakia


2 the right to know

foei | 35

Since 1999, people living in the Slovakian town ofRuzomberok have questioned plans formodernization and production increase at theNeusiedler SCP paper mill. The World Bankconsidered financing the project, but pulled out.In 2003, citizens were surprised when theEuropean Investment Bank (EIB) appeared on thescene with a 64 million Euro loan to the papermill. Their ignorance was understandable: the EIBdisclosed information about the loan very late,and only through its website rather than directlyto the public.

The environmental pollution caused by the SCPplant in Ruzomberok is a main reason for thetown’s status as a highly polluted area. The townand surrounding areas are well knownthroughout the Slovak Republic for theunbearable stench caused by the plant’semissions. In 1999, more than 3,000 inhabitantssigned a petition against the company’s long-term pollution of their local environment. Inspite of serious health problems in the town and

in surrounding areas, the risks arising from thepollution have never been rigorously assessed.

Despite local protests, the company geared up toincrease its paper production, applying forconstruction permits for modernizing andincreasing capacity. Affected citizens appealedagainst the deficiencies of the projectconstruction permit process. Based on theirclaim, the court decided not to issue the permituntil the local NGO’s concerns had beenseriously investigated.

too little information and too late

Local citizens learned of the EIB loan only afterit had been approved by the Bank’s Board ofDirectors in July 2003. In September 2003,Friends of the Earth Slovakia submitted arequest for information to the EIB, askingthree easy-to-answer questions about thetransparency of the loan approval. The EIBanswered only one of them, withunsatisfactory general phrases and excerptsfrom the Bank’s information policy.

Furthermore, the EIB approved the loanrequest despite the fact that several ongoinglegal proceedings submitted by affected localcitizens concerning violations against theirrights to public participation had not yet beensettled. The local NGO has requested that SCPincrease production only under twoconditions: the installation of an air qualitymonitoring system, and the undertaking of aserious analysis of the local health situationboth before and after project implementation.

The Ruzomberok case is one in a long list ofEIB loans that have been made with neithertransparency nor public participation.Ironically, the Bank itself portrays the projectas a positive one, and had promised that“significant environmental improvements”would result.

© a

tila

zili

k

© a

tila

zili

k

“The [World Bank’s Extractive IndustriesReview, EIR] received reports of alleged humanrights violations ranging from intimidation,torture, kidnapping, and detention to rape andkillings. Women and children often are themost severely harmed victims. According toinformation received by the EIR, the incidentsof human rights violations are mostly notacknowledged by governments and courts inmany developing countries. … There was also astrong element of fear: quite a few peopletestifying to the EIR required anonymity whendescribing human rights violations.”

World Bank Extractive Industries Review, December 2003.

ifis shirkresponsibility forhuman rightsviolations

For decades, the World Bank and otherinternational financial institutions (IFIs) havebeen forcing countries to open up forunregulated large-scale development projectswithout providing protection for people andthe environment. Their operations have leftbehind misery all over the planet. People have

been displaced from their ancestral lands,rivers polluted, livelihoods destroyed andpeople’s security repeatedly put at risk.

The IFIs cannot currently be heldaccountable for the human andenvironmental rights violations generatedby their programs and projects. Themember states of multilateraldevelopment banks like the World Bankhave all endorsed the UN Declaration onHuman Rights, and are bound by itsprovisions. But these obligations are oftenforgotten when countries take decisionswithin the banks. Paradoxically, althoughthe World Bank is itself a UN specializedagency, it is exempt from human rightsobligations under UN treaties.

So far, IFIs have refused to takeresponsibility for the human rightsimpacts of their lending, saying they arenon-political actors. They disregardwidespread calls for compensation andreparations. Despite being publicinstitutions with the aim to alleviatepoverty, the IFIs continue to financeprojects and programs that underminepeople’s rights.

more information:Friends of the Earth International IFIsprogramme: www.foei.org/ifi

3 the right to decide The principle of free, prior and informedconsent requires securing the consensus of allmembers of a group to a project within theirarea. The 1997 Indigenous Peoples Rights Actin the Philippines, for example, requires priorinformed consent for corporate projects inancestral lands and domains. In Papua NewGuinea, it requires that communities conferamongst themselves according to theircustomary decision-making systems andthrough their own representative institutions.Adequate time, a full and transparentprovision of information in appropriate formsand languages, and the absence of duress,intimidation, threat and negative incentives

Even when sufficient information is providedabout a particular project or plan, people, andparticularly marginalized groups likeindigenous people, people of color andwomen, are not always allowed access todecision-making channels. The right to decideis crucial to people’s self-determination, afundamental principle in human rights lawthat holds that people can “freely determinetheir political status and freely pursue theireconomic, social and cultural development”(UN International Covenant on Civil andPolitical Rights).

are all required. This right has beeninstrumental in the stopping of illegal loggingby a Malaysian corporation in Papua NewGuinea.

In Nigeria, communities affected by theproposed West African Gas Pipeline are askingthe Federal High Court to cancel theEnvironmental Impact Assessment for theproject on the grounds that the companies didnot consult communities as legally required.As the people living along the route of thepipeline will be most affected by the project,they are asserting their rights to be involved inthe decision-making process and todetermine their own futures.

36 | foei

west africanpipeline draggedbefore nigeriancourtfriends of the earth nigeria and friends of the

earth united states


3 the right to decide

© le

slie

fie

lds,

foe

us

Smoke is from a three-week-oldpipeline fire. Existing oil pipelines,

which weave through villages, oftencatch fire due to poor maintenance

and vandalism.

© le

slie

fie

lds,

foe

us

foei | 37

In March 2004, communities affected by theproposed West African Gas Pipelinechallenged the Federal Ministry ofEnvironment as well as the involved oilcompanies in a Federal High Court in Lagos,Nigeria. The petitioners, supported by Friendsof the Earth Nigeria, are asking the court tostop the project, which they claim is beingimplemented without respect for Nigerianlaws, in contravention of the African Charterof Human and Peoples’ Rights, and in totaldisregard of the environmental and livelihoodconcerns of local communities.

The West Africa Gas Pipeline is a 620-milelong natural gas pipeline originating inNigeria and passing through Benin and Togobefore ending in Ghana. Although the idea forthe pipeline was dreamed up more than twodecades ago, it is only now that the project isunderway that the consortium of oilcorporations and the World Bank have decidedto ‘consult’ with the people who will beimpacted.

The communities involved in the lawsuit areasking the court to cancel the EnvironmentalImpact Assessment for the project, includingthe public hearings, on the grounds that thecompanies did not follow due process byconsulting communities. The oil consortium –composed of Chevron, Shell, the NigerianNational Petroleum Corporation, the GhanaNational Petroleum Corporation, SocietéBeninoise de Gaz and Societé Togolaise de Gaz– is hoping to complete the project by 2005.

Neither the information provided by theconsortium nor meetings with the World Bankand Chevron have answered the public’squestions about how the gas will be used, butit is alleged that the beneficiaries will beGhanaian gold mining corporations. The USBush administration has touted the US$450million pipeline as one of the projects that willhelp West Africa to become a majoralternative source for oil and gas to the MiddleEast region in the near future.

more information:Pipe Dreams, Friends of the Earth Nigeria,Oilwatch and Friends of the Earth UnitedStates: [email protected] Friends of the Earth Nigeria: www.eraction.org Oilwatch: www.oilwatch.org Bank Information Center:www.bicusa.org/africa/pppwgap.htm

© s

chel

tem

a/gr

een

pea

ce

38 | foei

bulldozing rightsroad to nowhere in papua new guineacelcor/friends of the earth papua new guinea

Forests provide the basis of livelihood andculture for the nearly 80 percent of PapuaNew Guineans who live in rural communities.By law, tribal groups own all but three percentof the country’s land area and virtually all ofits forest resources, and laws are in place toensure that unwanted developments do notinterfere with people’s self determination.However, as the case of the Kiunga-Aiambakroad project shows, laws are not alwaysrespected when profits stand in the way.

On paper, the rights of Papua New Guineancommunities to their forests are welldeveloped. The national Forestry Act providesfor the recognition of customary landowners’rights to forest resources, proper royaltypayments, and compensation for any damagescaused as a result of logging operations. Anyproposal for the use of forest resourcesrequires the free and prior informed consent ofthe customary landowners, meaning that

communities are able to decide according totheir customary structures, through their ownrepresentative institutions, and at their ownpace without external pressure. Fullinformation has to be provided in the relevantforms and languages, and landowners mustseek proper legal and technical advice beforedeciding whether or not to allow resourcedevelopment on their land.

However, the requirements for free and priorinformed consent are usually not followed inPapua New Guinea, making communitiesvulnerable to the companies interested inextracting natural resources from their lands.People often cannot make informed decisionsas legal information and services are notreadily available. High illiteracy rates andlimited infrastructure further complicatematters. Consent is often obtained throughbribery, threats and other corrupt practices.


3 the right to decide

© g

reen

pea

ce/c

ole

Logging operations have not benefited children in the area of the Kiunga-Aiambak project.

Log barge on the Fly Riverin Papua New Guinea.

© g

reen

pea

ce©

gre

enp

eace

© s

chel

tem

a/gr

een

pea

ce

foei | 39

shadowy road project

One case of the imbalance between rights onpaper and rights in practice is the Kiunga-Aiambak road project. In 1994, a licence wasgranted to the Paiso company to clear logs inorder to make way for a road. Although thecompany was allegedly held by thelandowners, it was actually owned by twoindividuals, a PNG national and a Malaysianbusinessman closely associated with theMalaysian logging company Concord Pacific.In the first of many violations of nationalforestry laws, Paiso illegally sub-contractedthe logging to Concord Pacific.

The company later received an illegalextension to its license, making the Kiunga-Aiambak project one of the largest in thecountry. It also skirted its legal obligation topay royalties to landowners. In 2001, thecompany was granted yet another illegalpermit that allowed it to log an 830-kilometer

corridor through the forest and remove a totalof 5 million cubic metres of logs.

An independent review appointed by the WorldBank released a damning audit of the project inOctober 2000. The results confirmed theillegalities of the project, and verified thatlandowners had been harassed and threatenedwith firearms by loggers and police.

In 2001, Friends of the Earth Papua NewGuinea, representing 300 landowners in theKiunga-Aiambak area, lodged a claim with theWorld Bank Inspection Panel. The Papua NewGuinea government had been granted a loanfrom the World Bank, and the claim called onthe Bank to withhold the second tranche ofthe loan until illegal logging had beenstopped. In response, the World Bank absolveditself of responsibility, and recommended anaction plan that did not address any of thecomplaints.

Meanwhile, NGOs and local groups carriedout direct action to prevent the transport ofillegal logs. In 2002, Greenpeace activistsblocked the export of logs from Kiunga-Aiambak for three days.

In July 2003, the national court ruled in favorof the landowners and ordered all logging androad construction to be halted. The people ofKiunga-Aiambak are still in court, however,seeking compensation for their land and theirlivelihoods.

more information:Friends of the Earth Papua New Guinea:www.celcor.org.pgGreenpeace Australia Pacific:www.paradiseforest.org/paradise_lost/kiunga_aiambak_road.php

“Now when I see my bush, I cry. In the past we

had sago, pigs, cassowaries and big trees

everywhere. We used traditional paint from the

bush. Now Aiambak is very different, life is very

difficult. I cry for my village.”Jerry Iawe, Aiambak villager.

Logging operations on the Fly River, Papua New Guinea.

4 the right to resist “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinionand expression; this right includes freedom tohold opinion without interference and to seek,receive and impart information through anymedia and regardless of frontiers,” and Article3 maintains that: “Everyone has the right tolife, liberty and security of person.”

Nonetheless, environmental and humanrights activists all over the world are oftendenied these rights when their ideas andactions conflict with the status quo. Their livesmay be put at risk when they offer resistance,

When people’s environments and humanrights are threatened, they have the right tosafely express their discontent throughprotest. The right to freedom of opinion andexpression is a well-established civil andpolitical right in both national andinternational law, and is fundamental to theconcept of democracy and the respect ofhuman dignity. Article 19 of the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights states that:

as several of the cases in this publicationshow. Here, Juan Almendares from Friends ofthe Earth Honduras offers a personaltestimony about how his rights have beenthreatened throughout his life for defendinghuman rights and environmental justice. TheQuichua people of Ecuador have also sufferedfrom grave rights violations during theirresistance against the oil companies that haveinvaded their territories with the backing ofthe state.

40 | foei

poverty, violenceand environmentaljusticea testimony by juan almendaresfriends of the earth honduras

“First of all, I consider myself as belonging tothe people of Honduras and to humankindwith all the rights that brings. They say we were‘discovered’ more than 500 years ago, but thereality is that we had already discoveredourselves. For in the veins of my people runs arainbow of blood: the indigenous peoples ofHonduras, the Mayas, Chorties, Lencas, Pech,Tawakas, Misquitos, Nahuales, Tolupanes andGarifunas, and the English speakers of Africandescent, mixed with the Spanish, LatinAmericans, English, German, French, Italians,Arabs, Jews, Asians and other families fromdifferent parts of the globe.

I was born and raised in an environment ofpoverty and violence, where alcoholism andprostitution flourished. When I was six yearsold, the government ordered theschoolteachers to make us witness theexecution of a prisoner. I still remember thetrauma of seeing how they blew out thebrains of this man who had been deprived ofhis freedom. When I was eight, someone wascommissioned to assassinate my father inorder to take away a piece of his land, and Isaw him almost decapitated. As a child I sawcampesinos at the United Fruit Company killeach other with machetes while under theeffect of alcohol, and I saw soldiersassassinate the campesinos.


4 the right to resist

© f

oei

foei | 41

I was educated with ideas borrowed from theNorth. I did part of my studies in the UnitedStates, where I felt the racism in my livingflesh, but I also got to know the solidarity andthe generosity of those North Americanpeople who opposed the wars in Vietnam,Central America and Iraq. I have learned todifferentiate between the managers ofimperialism and the beautiful solidarity andconscience of the people.

I am a doctor and physiologist who combinesscientific with popular knowledge. I am learningto be a healer, and how to use medicinal plantsfrom indigenous people and campesinas.

I have been condemned by death squads inmy country for defending human rights andenvironmental justice, for helping poorpeople, and for my anti-imperialistconscience. I am still alive thanks to thesolidarity of my compatriots in the NorthAmerican, European, Third and Fourth Worlds.

a short history of honduras

Honduras is a multi-ethnic country, rich inculture, biodiversity and mineral resources. Atthe same time it is one of the mostimpoverished countries in Latin America due tocolonial and post-colonial plunder.Paradoxically, it is a nation that exports foodand is still one of the most malnourished inLatin America. In the international sphere weare considered a ‘banana republic’ or a ‘countryfor sale’. For centuries we have been occupied,evicted and exiled from the land and from ourculture. The crushing of our languages, therepression of our cultural expression, the denialof our history, the imposition of religion throughthe domination and humiliation of our people,the economic occupation and expropriation ofour resources has always been accompanied byideology, politics and the military.

Throughout history, Honduras has been undereconomic occupation by banana, mining andtobacco companies. Wood exports have stolenthe water, the air and the forest from us.Banana monoculture crops have flooded anddestroyed the forest with the pesticides anddioxins. The mining industry occupies almosta third of the land available for agriculturalproduction, and open-cut mining has createdartificial cyanide lakes in different parts of thecountry. Due to the economic, political,cultural and military occupation as well astrade agreements with the US and othercountries, economic inequality means povertyfor more than the 80% of the population.

resisting violence

The government’s policies are based on anauthoritarian, fascist and militarist ideology.This has led to diminished welfareexpenditures in health and education whilepolice and military security expenses haveincreased. Parallel to this has been apromotion of the idea that children and youngpeople are the cause of violence in Honduras,and they are assassinated daily by deathsquads in a policy of social cleansing. It isestimated that 549 minors were killed in2002, and 370 in 2003 (House Alliance, 2003).

An estimated 2.3 million hectares of forestwere destroyed between 1994 and 2001,predominantly by wood export companies.Agents contracted by these multinationalcompanies have been accused of attacks oncampesinos and native organizations. TeodoroMartinez, leader of the San Juan tribe, wasbeheaded for defending his people’s land. Inthe last twelve years, more than 48indigenous and black leaders have beenassassinated, and the crimes remainunpunished.

I currently run the Center for the Prevention ofTorture, and the premises have been raided,the computers damaged and stolen, thetelephones and electronic systems interferedwith, and our members assaulted byparamilitary forces and issued death threats.

Half a century ago, families settled the landabandoned by a branch of the ChiquitaBanana company and set up the village ofTacamiche with churches, schools and ahealth center. In the 1990s, by order of thebanana company and in cooperation with thegovernment, more than 100 houses and 200hectares of maize and beans were destroyedby military tractors. I witnessed the dischargeof more than 200 canisters of tear gas, whichnot only made us cry but also burned childrenand caused three women to miscarry. As Icared for the children’s injuries, I could seethat the nightmare of the terror generated by500 soldiers will last their entire lives.

The case of Honduras shows how deeplylinked the violation of human rights is withenvironmental justice.

Love and solidarity can build peace,environmental justice and human rights. Letour fight become a love poem to humanityand Mother Earth, and let the uniting ofdifferent cultures become a reality.”

42 | foei

blood and oil in theecuadorian amazonquichua rights upheld by inter-american court

un human rightsnorms under attackby businesscorporate europe observatory

In 2003, the UN Commission on Human Rights(UNCHR) put forth a proposal for Norms onBusiness and Human Rights. If approved next year,the Norms will make the human rights obligationsof transnational corporations explicit, and suggestfurther steps towards corporate accountability.

In response, corporate lobby groups such as theInternational Chamber of Commerce (ICC)launched a fierce counter-campaign aiming to killoff the proposal, with self-proclaimed corporatesocial responsibility pioneer Shell in a leading role.The US and the UK governments have alsoadopted hostile positions towards the Norms.

The Norms, a compilation of the social,economic and environmental obligations fortransnational corporations, was drafted by arespected body of 26 human rights experts fromaround the world. While confirming that stateshave the main responsibility to protect humanrights, the Norms also oblige business to “within

Sarayaku, which means “river of maize”, ishome to some 1,000 people who live amidst135,000 hectares of pristine forest in theEcuadorian Amazon. However, oil flows underthe territory of the Quichua people, and as aresult their lives and livelihoods areincreasingly under threat from transnationalcorporations and the Ecuadorian government.

In December 2003, a group of people fromSarayaku on their way to a peacefuldemonstration in protest of oil activitieswithin their territory were viciously attackedby aggressors. Shortly afterwards, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rightsextended the Precautionary Measures it hadpreviously granted in favor of Sarayaku for anadditional six months. Quichua legal counselJose Serrano observed that “the extension ofthe precautionary measures … serves to callattention to the Ecuadorian government'ssevere and systematic practice of violating

human rights and in this specific case, thecollective rights of the indigenous peoples.”

In March 2004, the Head of the Armed ForcesJoint Command entered Sarayaku’s centralvillage area accompanied by heavily armedmilitary police and army officials in order tointimidate the local people.

In July 2004, a ruling by the Inter-AmericanCourt of Human Rights ordered the Ecuadorianstate to “guarantee the life and personalintegrity of the members of the Sarayakucommunity and their defenders, as well as theright of free movement of the members ofSarayaku”. Just a few days earlier, the UnitedNations Committee on Economic, Social andCultural Rights had expressed concern “thatnatural extracting concessions have beengranted to international companies withoutthe full consent of the concernedcommunities” as well as about “the negativehealth and environmental impacts of naturalresource extracting companies’ activities atthe expense of the exercise of land and culturerights of the affected indigenous communitiesand the equilibrium of the ecosystem.”

Although the ruling and the UN statementsappear to be significant developments for

indigenous peoples both within Ecuador andglobally, the Quichua are not ready to letdown their guard. Even with the world’s eyesupon them, their people continue to sufferfrom aggressions as well as repeated publicthreats by the Ecuadorian authorities tomilitarize their territory in order to allow theArgentinean oil company CGC to take controlof their lands and livelihoods. This case may beonly the beginning: in July 2004, the oil-thirstyEcuadorian government declared a “totalopening” of the southern Ecuadorian Amazonfor the oil industry.

more information:www.sarayaku.com


4 the right to resist

© w

ww

.sar

ayak

u.c

om

© w

ww

.sar

ayak

u.c

om

“From a Shell perspective, we don’t find theNorms helpful.” Robin Aram, Shell’s Vice President

of External Relations and Policy Development, 2004.

their sphere of activity and influence”refrain from activities that directly orindirectly violate human rights, as well as toactively promote and protect these rights.

Although the Norms do not have the statusof a formal UN treaty, the proposal movesbeyond pure voluntarism and includes thecreation of a new implementationmechanism. The text suggests thatbreaches in the Norms can result incompensation to the victims. While theenforcement mechanism is still only aproposal, this is what has caused the mostoutrage among business lobby groups.

As Stefano Bertasi from the ICC explains: “Wesee them [the Norms] as conflicting with theapproach taken by other parts of the UN thatseek to promote voluntary initiatives.”The ICCgreatly prefers the UN’s Global Compact,which it helped to prepare. The Compactstates nine very general principles concerninghuman rights, labor and environment towhich companies can sign on, but lacks anymeaningful monitoring or enforcementsystem. The failure of the Compact to preventrights abuses by corporations is nowbecoming increasingly apparent.

more information:Shell Leads International Business Campaign Against

UN Human Rights Norms, Corporate Europe

Observatory: www.corporateeurope.org/norms.html

Qu

ich

ua

hou

se.

Sarayacu President Franco Viteri explains the position of the community to a military commander.

foei | 43

1. rights for environmental refugees

2. right to claim ecological debt

3. right to environmental justice

part three | redress

© e

lain

e gi

lliga

n, f

oe e

wn

i

Children watching Shell gas flare.

The number of environmental refugeesaround the world today is as high as 25million, according to the International RedCross, and is increasing exponentially.Environmental refugees are forced from theirhomes by phenomena including large dams,desertification, forest destruction, and mostrecently, climate change. To date there exist

few mechanisms to accommodate thesepeople, who lose their livelihoods, theircultures and their dignity when forced fromtheir homelands. Friends of the EarthInternational believes that the concept ofhuman rights must be broadened in order fornew and evolving issues to be recognized andprotected, including the phenomenon ofclimate refugees.

In China, the Three Gorges Dam willultimately displace nearly 2 million people asits reservoir fills, and the land andemployment promised to the resultingenvironmental refugees has not materialized.Friends of the Earth Australia is campaigningfor the recognition of the rights of theinhabitants of the Pacific Island states, whosehomelands face submergence with increasingglobal climate change.

1 rights for environmental refugees

1 rights forenvironmentalrefugees

44 | foei

damning humanrights at china’sthree gorges peter bosshard, international rivers network

“To struggle against the heavens is endlessjoy. To struggle against the earth is endless joy.To struggle against people is endless joy,”Chinese Communist Party Chairman MaoZedong once famously exclaimed. The ThreeGorges Project on the Yangtze River is markedby this outdated contempt for theenvironment and human rights. Thegargantuan dam project will create a reservoirwith a length of more than 600 kilometersand produce as much power as 15 largenuclear reactors combined. It will displace upto 1.9 million people, destroy invaluablearcheological treasures, and turn the YangtzeRiver into a toxic waste dump.

“If we only had one free newspaper in China,the Three Gorges Project would not go ahead,”the noted dissident journalist Dai Qing oftenremarked. After all opposition was squashedin the 1989 Tiananmen massacre,conservative government factions bulldozedthe project through a skeptical stateapparatus.

When criticism could no longer be safelyexpressed in China, International RiversNetwork (IRN) and other environmentalgroups called on foreign governments andfinancial institutions not to support the ThreeGorges project. The World Bank and the US Ex-Im Bank both decided to stay away, but thegovernments of Germany, Switzerland,Sweden, Canada, France and Brazil approvedofficial export credits of more than US$1.5billion for the scheme so that their companieswould get large contracts.

three redress

© b

en s

and

ler

The door of this house ismarked with the Chinese

character “chai”, meaningthat it will be submerged

with the filling of theThree Gorges Reservoir.

© b

en s

and

ler

© b

en s

and

ler

foei | 45

repression and environmental refugees

Dam construction has meanwhile beencompleted, and the Three Gorges reservoir ispartly filled. In 2003, IRN commissioned anindependent researcher to investigate thehuman rights impacts of the project. Theresearcher found that the land and jobspromised to the displaced residents were notavailable, compensation funds were routinelybeing diverted into other projects and privatepockets, and any opposition against theinadequate resettlement provisions was beingmet with heavy repression. The Three Gorgesproject has become “an instrument ofrepression with widespread human rightsabuses”, the investigative report concludes.

In a letter supported by 105 otherorganizations, IRN called on the governmentsfunding the dam to ensure that the projectand its resettlement program complied withinternational human rights norms, and for

construction activities to be put on hold untilthese standards were met. NGOs alsoproposed that governments draw up stricthuman rights guidelines for their export creditagencies. In a joint briefing with HumanRights in China and Friends of the EarthInternational, IRN presented these demandsto the UN Commission on Human Rights inGeneva in 2003.

In a rare public comment, the Chinesegovernment called the findings of theinvestigation “recklessly distorting gossip andrumors”. Most western governments did notbother to give any response to the criticismand concerns. Only the Swiss governmentcarried out its own investigation, and theSwiss foreign minister raised the humanrights violations when she visited China.

Governments often justify their support fordestructive dam projects by claiming thatthrough their involvement they can improve

the environmental and human rightsstandards of the project under question. Bytheir inactivity, most governments that fundthe Three Gorges Dam have demonstratedthat such claims are empty promises.

more information:Human Rights Dammed Off at Three Gorges,International Rivers Network:www.irn.org/programs/threeg/3gcolor.pdf

© f

oe e

wn

i

46 | foei

1 rights forenvironmentalrefugees

global warmingand climaterefugees in thepacific nationsfriends of the earth australia

The approximately seven million inhabitantsof the 22 small Pacific Island states have acommon concern: that climate change willmake their homelands uninhabitable. Climatechange and sea level rise are serious threats forthese people, and impacts are already beingfelt on food and water security as well ashuman health. The potential completeobliteration of Tuvalu in the coming decadeschallenges the value that the world places onthe sovereign rights of low-lying island nationsto exist. This is one of the most fundamentalof human rights, and whilst the world debatesabout minor reductions in global greenhousegas emissions a game of roulette is beingplayed with the fate of Pacific Islanders.

The Pacific nation of Tuvalu, where the atollsare an average of only 2.5 meters above sealevel, has gained international recognition asone of the world’s most vulnerable nations toclimate change. However all of the PacificIslands have been ravaged by a steadyincrease in cyclone frequency and severity inrecent years, such as Cyclone Heta in January2004 that destroyed almost the entireinfrastructure of Niue near Papua NewGuinea. Increased flooding at high tide, whichis already being experienced in Tuvalu, as wellas the impacts of extreme weather events oninfrastructure, food and water security, havethe potential to render some nationsuninhabitable in the near future. Clearly, theconsequences of climate change are notsimply environmental, but also social, culturaland economic.

three redress

© f

oe a

ust

ralia

Tuvaluan activist Siuila Toloaspeaking at a public meeting inCanberra, Australia.

foei | 47

Climate change also brings up two new andimmediate rights concerns: What happens topeople who are displaced by global warming?And what happens to the sovereign status ofnations that need to be abandoned? As moreand more people find their homelandsuninhabitable, many will need to flee,becoming ‘ecologically displaced people’.

the social dimensions of climate change

While the concept of environmental refugeesis not new (the term has been in use since thelate 1940s), climate refugees are an emergingphenomenon. In its World Disasters Report2001, the International Red Cross suggestedthat 25 million people (up to 58% of theworld’s existing refugees) may beenvironmental refugees. These people arefleeing a multitude of disruptions, and, itappears, global warming is one of them.

Yet if current modelling and trends are correct,even these rather daunting numbers aredwarfed by what seems to be possible in thenear future. One expert on the topic of climaterefugees, Norman Myers of Oxford University,says that there could be 150 millionenvironmental refugees on the move within50 years, including up to 1 million in thePacific. Other researchers have suggestedhigher figures, with some estimates reaching400 million displaced people by the middle ofthis century. These people are not currentlyrecognized by the United Nations HighCommissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), and arethus not afforded any particular protection orsupport once they become displaced.

expanding rights

While the definition enshrined in theUniversal Declaration on Human Rightsremains a vital benchmark in ensuring thebasic dignity of all peoples, the concept ofhuman rights must be expanded to includenew and evolving issues in the 21st century.These include recognition of the concept ofecological debt and the carbon debt owed bythe over-consuming North to the rest of theworld. In practical terms, this will mean therecognition of the phenomenon of climaterefugees by national governments andentities such as the UNHCR.

While the North will need to work with affectedcommunities in the South (through

acknowledgement of the ecological debt,increased and new forms of foreign aid and thetransfer of appropriate and sustainabletechnologies), the ultimate form of ‘adaptation’to global warming will be the recognition ofclimate refugees. While there is a growingawareness that this should be a last resortmeasure, that is, an option for when all attemptsto adapt to changed local conditions have failed,considerable forward planning will be requiredto put structures in place to assist people tomove should global warming make their currentexistence untenable. In this sense, New Zealand/Aotearoa should be acknowledged for themigration program it has negotiated withTuvalu, which will allow the majority of theTuvaluan population to relocate to New Zealandin a staged programme in coming years.

As noted by Tuvaluan activist Siuila Toloa, whenclimate change forces the movement of peopleas refugees, there is the potential that countrieswill lose their sovereignty and traditional

customs. Tuvaluans are heavily dependent ontheir immediate ecological surroundings fortheir subsistence. They have noticed a markeddecrease in their traditional crops due tosaltwater intrusion, and marine resourceharvests have also declined. The resultingreliance on imported, processed foods, which inturn are associated with lifestyle diseases suchas hypertension and diabetes, threatens bothfood security and health.

sovereignty concerns

Samoan environmental activist Fiu MataeseElisara has highlighted the fact that all Pacificnations have the right to exist as sovereignnations on traditional lands rather than beingforced from their lands by global warming.This right is enshrined in Article 15 of theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights,whereby all peoples have the right to anationality.

What does it imply for sovereignty if nationslose all or some of their lands and territorialwaters to climate change? While one group ofTuvaluans has developed plans to purchase anisland off Fiji to relocate to, what will happento their sovereign rights once they relinquishtheir traditional lands? It is standard practicefor refugees to be ‘incorporated’ into thecitizenship of recipient countries where theysettle permanently. But it can be argued thatwe are facing an unprecedented situationwhere entire nations may be lost. Many

aspects of national and international law willneed to be tested and adapted in comingyears to deal with this problem.

As Siuila notes, “Most developments indeveloped countries are undertaken at thecost of the environment”, and in the case ofclimate change the impacts will largely be feltby southern communities. National decisionsthat relate to development models,infrastructure and energy thus all have aninherent human rights dimension to beconsidered. Siuila’s words are also a timelyreminder that a reduction in natural resourceconsumption in the North must take place inorder to prevent the loss of sovereignty bysmall island states and other extremelyvulnerable southern nations.

more information:Friends of the Earth Australia:www.foe.org.au/climatewww.foe.org.au/population

For decades, northern countries have helpedthemselves to the natural riches of LatinAmerica, Asia and Africa in order to fuel anunsustainable economic growth. Theexploitation of forests, biodiversity, minerals,oil and traditional knowledge has leftenvironmental destruction and social andcultural upheaval in its wake. Friends of the

Earth International is calling for therecognition and repayment of the ecologicaldebt – the cumulative results of decades ofresource plundering, destroyed biodiversity,environmental damage, waste dumping andclimate change – owed by industrializedcountries to the people of the South.

Affected communities and Friends of theEarth in Paraguay and Argentina are callingupon the World Bank and Inter-American

Development Bank to provide compensationand remediation for the environmental andsocial disruption caused by the Yacyretá megadam. On the opposite side of the world,Friends of the Earth Scotland is buildingalliances between Scottish and southerncommunities in order to address therepayment of the ecological debt.

2 right to claimecological debt

48 | foei


three redress

© k

ees

kod

de,

foe

net

her

lan

ds

scots addressecological debtfriends of the earth scotland

As one of the first countries to industrialize,Scotland has accumulated an ecological debt.In response, Friends of the Earth is buildingsolidarity between communities in Scotlandand communities in southern countries inorder to address the repayment of the country’secological debt. Rather than calculating afinancial cost, they are looking at other ways toaddress this debt – by targeting exploitativemultinational companies, by supporting localstruggles in different parts of the world, byreducing resource dependence and bysupporting refugees in Scotland, for example.

Friends of the Earth has designed a populareducation program for community groupsfocusing on ecological debt, which has provento be a useful concept for expanding people’sunderstanding of the environment, povertyand debt issues. It raises questions about aworldview dominated by a free marketperspective, adds weight to the argument fordebt cancellation for Third World countries,and draws attention to the responsibilities ofthe North towards the South.

more information:Friends of the Earth Scotland:www.foe-scotland.org.uk/inter/ecodebt.html

© f

oe p

arag

uay


foei | 49

reclaimingsubmerged rights communities seek compensation forimpacts of yacyretá mega-damfriends of the earth paraguay

Yacyretá is one of the largest and mostcomplex hydroelectric projects in the world,and a striking example of the environmentaland social rights violations caused by largedams. Affected communities in Paraguay andArgentina are currently claiming the right tocompensation and remediation for theextensive damage done to their lives andenvironments.

Construction of the 67-kilometre dam acrossthe Paraná River, joining Argentina andParaguay, began in 1983 with funding fromthe World Bank and Inter-AmericanDevelopment Bank. Ever since, the project hasbeen plagued with delays, corruption,disputes, political instability and abuse ofpower. Attempts by civil society to participatein the decision making process have been metwith strong institutional resistance.

The 110,000-hectare artificial lake that wascreated when the reservoir was partially filled in1994 inundated unique natural ecosystems,valuable agricultural land and denselypopulated urban areas. The impacts of theproject on indigenous, rural and urbancommunities have been enormous, withthousands of families being involuntarilyrelocated. Rising groundwater levels and alteredsurface water flows have contaminated watersupplies and exposed thousands of poor urbanfamilies to increased risk of water-borne disease.

Existing compensation and resettlementprograms have failed to meet the basic needsof thousands of affected families, creating alasting legacy of poverty and suffering. Tomake matters worse, the governments intendto raise the reservoir level from 76 to 83meters above sea level, which will likelydisplace at least 57,000 additional people.

claiming reparations

The enormous social impacts of Yacyretáconstitute a grave violation of basic humanrights to property, housing, health, livelihood,environmental and quality of life. In 1996,Friends of the Earth Paraguay and affectedcommunities presented a claim to the WorldBank and the Inter-American DevelopmentBank, requesting that the violations of bothbanks’ policies in relation to the dam beinvestigated. The reports of the twoindependent inspection panels recommendedimmediate action to remedy the harm caused

by violation of bank policies. Yet to date, nocredible action has been taken. In 2002, a localcommunity organization presented a newclaim highlighting the ongoing violations ofbank policies; the reports of the investigationson this second claim have not yet been issued.

Friends of the Earth Paraguay is calling for theYacyretá Binational Entity to compensate forthe damages that have been caused by thedam. They propose the implementation of adebt payment mechanism to financecompensation, the mitigation of pastdamages, and reinvestment in affectedcommunities. They are calling for thedevelopment of programs to restorewatersheds and key ecosystems, toimplement sustainable agriculture and toreinvigorate towns and cities. They also wantinternational financial institutions andgovernments to create a ‘remedy andreinvestment fund’ in order to restore thequality of life of affected people.

three redress

“Large dams have

fragmented the world’s

rivers and displaced

between 40 and 80

million people.”World Commission on Dams Final Report,

‘Dams and Development’, 2000.

© f

oe p

arag

uay

Around the world, the most marginalizedpeople are very often the targets ofenvironmental injustices. Companies dobusiness so as to avoid liability for theiractivities, and the absence of environmentaland social regulations has allowed manycorporate crimes to go unpunished. Withmeaningful means of redress, communitieswould be able to right corporate wrongs innational courts, through internationalmechanisms and with the establishment ofhome country liability for corporations thatmisbehave abroad.

In an attempt to draw attention toenvironmental discrimination, Friends of theEarth Scotland provides support and trainingfor environmental justice activists all over thecountry. One manifestation of environmentalinjustice is environmental racism, whichdisproportionately targets and harms theenvironment, quality of life and security ofcommunities, workers and individuals basedon race, class, gender, caste, ethnicity and/ornational origin. In the United States,communities of color and indigenous peoplesbear the brunt of pollution due to deliberatecorporate and government policies.

3 right to environmental justice

50 | foei

3 right toenvironmental justice

environmentaljustice movementwest dallas, united states and now the worldfriends of the earth united states

In the United States, research has clearlydemonstrated that African American,indigenous and other communities of colorbear a disproportionate burden of thepollution in their areas. It is well documentedthat race—not income, education, propertyvalue or other indicators—is the single mostdeterminative factor in the siting of toxicfacilities, as well as in lax environmentalenforcement. According to the National BlackEnvironmental Justice Network, people ofcolor communities are at greater risk ofsuffering from environmentally-related healthdisorders than are residents of predominantlywhite communities.

For years, the most notorious polluter in WestDallas, Texas was a lead smelter that wasoperated from 1934-84 by the RSRCorporation. Between 1950 and 1952, the citygovernment resettled 19,000 residents to asegregated section of an industrial zone “as anArea to be occupied primarily by Negroes”(West Dallas Neighborhood DevelopmentCorporation). West Dallas was also designatedas a neighborhood for Mexican immigrantsand Mexican-Americans. The RSR smelter’sbyproducts – battery chips, lead slag, and peagravel – were deposited in piles in theneighborhood. These piles were utilized as fillfor driveways and house lots, and childrengrew up playing in them.

Every night there were emissions of lead fluedust, cadmium, zinc, and arsine gas. The heavymetals dispersed as a fine mist of particulatematter over the neighborhoods, and settledon homes, land and vegetation. West Dallaswas also home to four petrochemical

three redress

© li

tera

cy f

or e

nvi

ron

men

tal

just

ice,

cal

ifor

nia

Climate justice is an emerging demand due tothe increasing human rights violationsassociated with climate change. It will be theearth’s most marginalized people who will be thehardest hit by global climate change, despite thehistoric contribution of the rich nations to thispending catastrophe. Friends of the EarthInternational’s Climate Justice Project issupporting communities in the Niger Deltawhose livelihoods are being spoiled by pollutingoil companies. Friends of the Earth United Statesand climate victims in that country are suing theUS government for failing to address globalwarming, and Friends of the Earth Nepal isworking with Himalayan communitiesthreatened by melting glacial lakes.

Young people fromCalifornia march for

environmental justice.

foei | 51

refineries, storage facilities and open-airlagoons; four chemical manufacturingcompanies; six mining companies andquarries; and two cement companies andkilns. Completing this toxic district were twotank and boiler works, and a number offoundries, metal and machine shops, solidwaste dumps and landfills.

a movement is born

Activists in West Dallas spent sixteen yearsgetting the smelter closed, and anothersixteen years advocating for the cleanup. Theawakening of West Dallas citizens to thepollution and incumbent health, social andeconomic disorders occurred – as with manyother communities around the US – with theadvent of the environmental justicemovement. The United Church of Christ’sCommission on Racial Justice convened thefirst National People of Color Summit in 1991,

bringing together over 1000 people. Elevenyears later, another Summit was convenedand attendees flocked from around the world;in the intervening years networks werecreated, policies and laws were enacted,setbacks and a conservative backlash wereweathered, and the environmental justicemovement grew and grew.

The environmental justice movement, as itoriginated and gelled in the US in the 1980sand 90s, became a global phenomenonmobilizing the poor, people of color andminority groups around the world.Globalization is exacerbating environmentalracism, as transnational companies relocatetheir facilities to countries with cheaper laborand weaker or unenforced environmentalstandards. The relocated facilities are oftensited in communities of color.

Governments must ensure that their policiesand practices adhere to the ‘polluter pays’ andprecautionary principles as outlined in the RioDeclaration. Global corporate hegemony mustbe challenged on every level: locally,nationally, regionally and internationally sothat corporate rights do not supersede towncouncils, national parliaments, congresses andinternational treaties. No less than the futureof the global environment, nations’sovereignty, and the democratic freedoms andhuman rights of all peoples are at stake.

more information:Friends of the Earth United States:www.foe.orgSouthwest Organizing Project: www.swop.net

© e

lain

e gi

lliga

n, f

oe e

wn

i

Environmental racism goes hand-in-hand with economic globalization, with poorly regulated,polluting companies operating in developing countries like Nigeria.

52 | foei


agents forenvironmentaljusticefriends of the earth scotland

friends of the earthseeks climatejustice friends of the earth international

In 1999, Friends of the Earth Scotland adoptedenvironmental justice as its campaign priority,combining the objectives of support for localcommunities with the global goal of cuttingover-consumption. Their call for local, globaland intergenerational equality can besummed up with the slogan: “No less than adecent environment for all; no more than ourfair share of the earth’s resources.”

The group’s Agents for Environmental Justiceproject provides popular education, supportand training for community activists fightingfor environmental justice. The agents aredrawn from urban, rural, semi-urban, tradeunion and minority ethnic communities,where they are involved in struggles againstopen-cast mines, road developments,quarries, fish farms, and GM crops, as well assubstandard housing, black and refugeeissues, alternative economic development andsustainable waste management.

The first twelve agents were awardedCertificates in Environmental Justice byQueen Margaret University College as a resultof the project, and a new group is currentlybeing educated.

Through the resulting social action, theproject improves the environment forcommunities throughout Scotland. This isobviously important for Friends of the Earth,as the interests and struggles of localcommunities and workers are incorporatedinto their campaign priorities and ultimatelycontribute to the group’s overallenvironmental goals.

more information:Friends of the Earth Scotland:www.foe-scotland.org.uk/nation/ej.html

Friends of the Earth International hosts theClimate Justice Programme, launched in 2003.Dozens of organizations and lawyers havecollaborated to support law enforcementaround the world to combat climate changeand associated human rights abuses. This newand dramatic response to climate change givespeople the ability to use legal rights to seekredress, to protect their lives and livelihoods,and to send a clear message that they are notpassive victims but players on the politicalstage whose concerns must be respected.

Legal challenges are underway in the UnitedStates against the Bush administration’sexport credit bodies for not taking climatechange into account when providing financialsupport for fossil fuel projects and itsEnvironmental Protection Agency for rejectingits power under the Clean Air Act to regulateglobal warming emissions(www.climatelaw.org/media/states.challenge.bush). Friends of the Earth is collaborating

with other organizations, US states and cities,and affected individuals in these cases.

The first European climate change case beganin the Berlin courts in June 2004, with achallenge to the German government’ssecrecy over the fossil fuel projects supportedby its export credit agency (see page 32).

Meanwhile, a petition to the Inter-AmericanCommission on Human Rights against theUnited States is being developed by the Inuit ofCanada for violations of their human rights dueto climate change, including their rights toproperty, culture and subsistence(www.climatelaw.org/media/inuit).

A 2004 Friends of the Earth Internationalpublication about ExxonMobil’s contribution toclimate change (www.climatelaw.org/media/exxon.contribution) has shown that wecan work out how major companies around theworld have fueled global warming. This kind ofanalysis will help cases aimed at establishingclimate change liability against corporations.

three redress

© f

oe s

cotl

and

© b

alth

azar

ser

reau

Shareholders outside the2004 Shell AGM in Londonare urged by Friends of theEarth to read all abouthow the company isdamaging communitiesand the environment inthe Other Shell Report(www.foe.co.uk).

© e

ra/f

oe n

iger

ia


us climate victims file suitfriends of the earth united states

In 2002, Friends of the Earth United States,Greenpeace and the cities of Boulder,Colorado and Oakland, California filed alawsuit in the US District Court in SanFrancisco on behalf of their members andcitizens who are victims of global warming.The suit was filed against two US governmentagencies – the Export Import Bank (Ex-Im) andthe Overseas Private Investment Corporation(OPIC). Ex-Im and OPIC are taxpayer-fundedagencies that provide financing and loans toUS corporations for overseas projects thatcommercial banks deem too risky.

This legal action – the first of its kind – allegesthat OPIC and Ex-Im illegally provided overUS$32 billion in financing and insurance foroil fields, pipelines and coal-fired power plantsover the past ten years without assessingtheir contribution to global warming and theirimpact on the US environment as requiredunder key provisions of the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPArequires all federal agencies to conduct anenvironmental assessment of programs andproject-specific decisions having a significanteffect on the human environment; however,according to the complaint, OPIC and Ex-Imhave refused to review the contribution oftheir programs and fossil fuel projects toglobal warming.

Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace membersinvolved in the suit include a North Carolinacouple who fear their retirement property willbe lost to storm surges, erosion and the risingsea level; maple syrup producers in Vermontwho believe their business will be ruined asmaple trees disappear from the area; and amarine biologist whose life’s work is injeopardy because the coral reefs he has spenta lifetime studying and enjoying aredisappearing at an alarming rate due tobleaching from rising ocean temperatures.

more information:Climate Justice Programme:www.climatelaw.orgClimateLawsuit.org: www.climatelawsuit.org

three redress

foei | 53

“We’re nervous about climate

change—if we have no

maples, we have no farm

income and the value of our

land will be devastated.”Vermont maple sugar farmers

Arthur and Anne Berndt.

A lawsuit has been filed against US government agencies that fund destructive projects abroad that contribute to climate change.

54 | foei

© e

lain

e gi

lliga

n, f

oe e

wn

i


climate change and environmentalracism in the niger deltapeter roderick, climate justice programme

If you’ve ever wondered what Dante’s infernomight feel like, take a trip to Shell Nigeria’s gasflare at Rumuekpe in the Niger Delta. Orperhaps to the two Shell flares at theUmuebulu community along the Aba Roadjust outside Port Harcourt. Or to the scoresmore operated by Shell, ExxonMobil,ChevronTexaco, Agip and TotalFinaElf inAfrica’s most populated country. You’ll neverbe the same.

These monstrosities, which rage 24 hours perday and seven days per week, would never beaccepted in a white community, and are asgood an example of environmental racism asyou’ll find anywhere. Even the World Bank hasdescribed them as “the most striking exampleof environmental neglect” in the country.There are at least three powerful reasons whythey must stop.

no reason to flare

First, they are an appalling waste. In the rest ofthe world, almost all gas separated off fromthe crude oil with which it is mixed is used bydomestic or industrial customers, or re-injected – in western Europe the figure is 99percent.

Second, they harm the people who live nearthem, as well as their environment. Imaginethe psychological effect of living with suchnoise and intense heat every day and night.Little grows close to gas flares, and theytypically contain several toxic substances,such as benzene, a proven carcinogen.Villagers complain of acid rain corroding theirroofs. Small wonder that the main Shellresidential camp with its barbed wireperimeter fences is located down the AbaRoad far from its Umuebulu flares besidewhich the local poor live.

three redress

© e

lain

e gi

lliga

n, f

oe e

wn

i

Shell oil spill at Rukpoku.

foei | 55

© e

lain

e gi

lliga

n, f

oe e

wn

i

Third, they are a significant contributor toclimate change. Flaring natural gas causesemissions of both carbon dioxide andmethane, two of the most importantgreenhouse gases. Precise estimates of theamounts of gas flared are notoriously difficultto come by, and there is no worldwidedatabase. One World Bank estimate suggeststhat typically 4.8 trillion cubic feet of gas isflared or vented annually, of which Nigeriacontributed 965 billion cubic feet in the late1990s - about 20%, by far the single biggestnational emitter. The Bank reckons that thecountry’s flaring has contributed moregreenhouse gas emissions than all othersources in sub-Saharan Africa combined.

Add to these arguments the facts that the firstNigerian legislation relating to use of this gasdates back to 1969, that general flaring hasbeen illegal since 1984, and that Nigeriancitizens have legally enforceable rights to life,dignity and to live in a satisfactoryenvironment, and the obvious question is:why does the flaring continue?

The oil companies have persuaded thecurrent, quasi-military Obasanjo regime toallow them to continue flaring until at least2008. They argue that they cannot afford tostop flaring, but this is simply not credible.The combined annual profits of the relevantcompanies are tens of billions of dollars, andmost of Nigeria’s oil reserves lie in “relativelysimple geological structures” according to theUS government.

But the story is not one of total darkness.Rumuekpe villagers successfully “fought andfought” Shell, says Mr Chukwunenye Esevi, toinstall a borehole for fresh water. Even thoughabsolute flaring amounts have increased, thepercentage of Nigerian flaring is reported tohave reduced recently. There is some proofthat putting pressure on the companiesworks. Friends of the Earth Nigeria and theClimate Justice Programme are workingtogether to increase these efforts locally,nationally and internationally. Then, thepeople of the Niger Delta might be treated inthe same way as people in other parts of theworld and, in the process, needlessgreenhouse gas emissions will be stopped.

more information:Friends of the Earth Nigeria: www.eraction.orgClimate Justice Programme:www.climatelaw.org

“The main beneficiaries of

the oil sector are foreign oil

companies and the Nigerian

government. As yet, there has

been very little direct impact

of oil and gas production on

the lives of Nigeria’s poor.”World Bank, 2002.

Woman tending her plot at Shell gas flare site, Rumuekpe.

56 | foei

© t

ania

du

nst

er


The Sagarmatha National Park is famed forMount Everest, the highest peak in the world.Small communities struggle to grow food onthe rugged terrain, and Sherpas graze theirlivestock in the upper peaks during the warmmonths. Wild animals native to the areainclude the Himalayan tahr, the goral, theserow, the musk deer, the Himalayan blackbear, and some 118 bird species.

This dramatic region is threatened by climatechange, which would have potentiallyhorrendous consequences for the people andnature in these lofty settlements. Increasedtemperatures can rapidly melt glacier ice, andprecipitation at higher altitudes will fall as rainrather than snow. The lives and livelihoods ofthe mountain communities are already beingaffected by climate change: crop patterns arechanging, and water resources are under

threat. Furthermore, twenty glacial lakes are atrisk of outburst, which would have catastrophiceffects on downstream communities.

Supported by Friends of the Earth Nepal, thecommunities are exploring the possibility ofpetitioning UNESCO to place the SagarmathaNational Park on the World Heritage in DangerList. They may also be able to ask the NepalSupreme Court to remedy the breach of thesepeople's human rights, and order companiesand governments to pay for the cost of makingthe glacial lakes safe. If necessary, they mayalso be able to petition the UN Human RightsCommittee about the denial of their rights.

three redress

himalayancommunitiesthreatened bymelting glaciallakesfriends of the earth nepal

foei | 57

1. landmark environmental rights cases

2. legal tools addressing human and environmental rights

3. human and environmental rights contacts

appendices

© s

chel

tem

a/gr

een

pea

ce

Traditional canoes like this one on the Aramia River in Papua New Guinea are threatened by large-scale logging operations in the country.

58 | foei

1 landmark environmental rights cases

Using legal channels to secure any form ofhuman or environmental rights can be a slow,expensive and frustrating process. Theexistence of laws, conventions andagreements does not guarantee that they arerespected or implemented, and as the casestudies in this publication show, manyindividuals and communities have used legalchannels to no avail. However, there are someimportant precedents and ongoing legal casesthat can serve as inspiration for those waginglegal battles as part of a broader campaign. Afew of these are described below.

yanomami vs. brazil In the 1970s and 80s, theconstruction of a road through Yanomamiindigenous territory in the Brazilian Amazonposed a huge threat to the survival of thesepeople. The resulting intrusion of gold minersbrought diseases to which the Yanomami hadno resistance, and an estimated ten percent ofthe population has since been decimated. In1985, the Inter-American Commission onHuman Rights ruled that the Braziliangovernment had violated several humanrights and must remedy the situation. Despitethis historic ruling in the field ofenvironmental rights, the government has notkept its commitment to protect Yanomamiland, and these people are still threatened.

awas tingni vs. nicaragua In 2001, the Inter-American Court ruled against the state ofNicaragua in connection with illegal loggingin the territories of the indigenous AwasTingni people. The Nicaraguan governmentwas ordered to recognize and protect theAwas Tingni’s rights to their traditional lands,natural resources and environment. This case,the first land and resource dispute to beaddressed by the Inter-American Court, wasan important victory in the emerging field ofenvironmental rights litigation.

lubicon cree vs. canada In 1990, the HumanRights Committee (which enforces theInternational Covenant on Civil and PoliticalRights) ruled that both historical inequitiesand more recent developments threaten theway of life and culture of the Lubicon LakeBand Cree of Canada. The Canadiangovernment, which had expropriated Lubiconland for oil and gas exploration, was orderedto rectify the situation as soon as possible.Despite this historic legal victory, however, theLubicon Cree have had to apply continualpressure on the Canadian government torespect the Committee’s decision.

western shoshone vs. us government In 1993,a group of Western Shoshone NativeAmericans filed a petition with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rightsalleging that their rights to their ancestralland were being illegally violated by theUnited States. Ten years, later, theCommission ruled that the claims of theUnited States to Western Shoshone land wereindeed illegal and violated internationalhuman rights law.

guerra vs. italy In 1998, the European Court ofHuman Rights made a strong link betweenhuman rights and environmental protectionby ruling that Italy had violated the EuropeanConvention on Human Rights by failing toprovide the local population of Manfredoniawith information about the risks of accidentsat a nearby chemical factory.

ecuadorian amazon communities vs. texacoFrom 1964 to 1991, the US oil company Texacoallegedly illegally dumped 18.5 million gallonsof toxic waste and contaminated residue inthe Ecuadorian Amazon. In 1993, a class-action lawsuit was filed in the US on behalf ofsome 30,000 indigenous and settler residentsin the affected areas. Texaco delayed the casefor years by refusing to accept the jurisdictionof the American court. In 2002, however, theUS court ordered the company to acceptjurisdiction in Ecuador. If won, the case couldresult in US companies being heldenvironmentally accountable for their actionsin foreign countries.

doe vs. unocal In this ongoing case, Burmesepeasants are seeking redress for human rightsabuses including the involuntary relocation ofentire villages, forced labor and violence thatresulted from Unocal’s pipeline project. Thecase, brought under the Alien Tort Claims Actin 1997, is now in appeal. The lawsuit marksthe first time that a US corporation has faceda trial in the US for alleged human rightsabuses committed abroad.

wiwa v. royal dutch petroleum (shell) InNovember 1995, two Ogoni leaders fromNigeria, Ken Saro-Wiwa and John Kpuinen,were hung in Nigeria. This and other relatedabuses are the focus of a lawsuit against Shellfor its role in suppressing peaceful oppositionto oil activities in the Niger Delta. The casecontinues despite Shell’s attempts to throw itout of court, where it is being heard under theAlien Tort Claims Act.

bowoto vs. chevrontexaco In 1999, victims ofgross human rights abuses associated withChevron’s oil production activities in the NigerDelta filed suit against Chevron in a federalcourt in San Francisco. The case, filed underthe Alien Tort Claims Act, is based on theshooting of peaceful protestors at Chevron’sParabe offshore platform and the destructionof two villages by soldiers in Chevronhelicopters and boats. Chevron’s attempt tohave the case dismissed, arguing that Nigeriais the proper forum for the dispute, did notsucceed.

more information:EarthRights International:www.earthrights.org

appendix

2 legal tools addressing human and environmental rights

appendix

3 human and environmentalrights contacts

appendix

foei | 59

the main human rights treaties

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948

www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

• International Covenant on Economic, Social and

Cultural Rights, 1976

www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_cescr.htm

• International Covenant on Civil and Political

Rights, 1976

www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_ccpr.htm

human rights courts

• International Court of Justice in the Hague

www.icj-cij.org

• Inter-American Court of Human Rights

www.corteidh.or.cr/index_ing.html

• International Criminal Court in the Hague

www.icc-cpi.int

rights at the regional level

• European Convention for the Protection of Human

Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950 and

subsequent amendments)

www.magnacartaplus.org/echr

• American Convention on Human Rights, 1969. Has

a Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples (the

San Salvador Protocol)

www.cidh.org/Basicos/basic3.htm

• African Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1986

www.hrcr.org/docs/Banjul/afrhr.html

• Draft Arab Charter on Human Rights (adopted

1994, revised Jan 2004 but not yet in force)

www.pogar.org/themes/reforms/documents/acharte

r.pdf

• Aarhus Convention (UN Economic Commission for

Europe Convention on Access to Information, Public

Participation in Decision-Making and Access to

Justice in Environmental Matters), 1998

www.unece.org/env/pp/documents/cep43e.pdf

• Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European

Union, 2000

www.europarl.eu.int/charter/default_en.htm

useful treaties for environmental rights

campaigning

• Stockholm Declaration of the United Nations

Conference on the Human Environment, 1972

www.unep.org/Documents/Default.asp?DocumentI

D=97&ArticleID=1503

• Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989

www.unicef.org/crc

• Convention No. 169 concerning Indigenous and

Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, 1991

www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/62.htm

• The Rio Declaration on Environment and

Development, 1992

www.unep.org/Documents/?DocumentID=78&Articl

eID=1163

• Agenda 21: Programme of Action for Sustainable

Development, 1992

www.unep.org/Documents/?DocumentID=52

• The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action,

adopted by the UN World Conference on Human

Rights on 25 June 1993

www.un.org/events/humanrights/vienna.html

• Draft Declaration of Principles on Human Rights

and the Environment, prepared by Special

Rapporteur Fatma Zohra Ksentini, 1994

www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/1994-dec.htm

• United Nations Draft Declaration on the Rights of

Indigenous Peoples, 1994

www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/declra.htm

• Beijing Declaration, 1995

www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/beijing/platform/d

eclar.htm

• Copenhagen Declaration on Social Development

adopted by the World Summit for Social

Development, 1995

www.un.org/esa/socdev/wssd/agreements

• Habitat Agenda from United Nations Conference

on Human Settlements (Habitat II) in Istanbul, 1996

www.unchs.org/unchs/english/hagenda/

• Rome Declaration of the World Food Summit, 1996

www.fao.org/wfs/index_en.htm

• Draft International Covenant on Environment and

Development, IUCN Commission on International

Law and International Council of Environmental

Law, 2000

www.iucn.org/themes/law/pdfdocuments/EPLP31E

Nsecond.pdf

• Proposed United Nations Norms on the

Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and

Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human

Rights

www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/0/6415

5e7e8141b38cc1256d63002c55e8?Opendocument

Amazon Watch: www.amazonwatch.org

Amnesty International, Just Earth programme:

www.amnestyusa.org/justearth/

ANPED Northern Alliance for Sustainability:

www.anped.org/index.php?a=4&b=4170

Center for Constitutional Rights: www.ccr-

ny.org/v2/legal/human_rights/human_rights.asp

Center for Economic and Social Rights: www.cesr.org

Center for Human Right and the Environment:

www.cedha.org.ar/en (English)

www.cedha.org.ar/es (Spanish)

Center for International Environmental Law:

www.ciel.org

Corporate Crime Reporter:

www.corporatecrimereporter.com/

Corporate Europe Observatory:

www.corporateeurope.org/norms

EarthJustice: www.earthjustice.org

Earth Rights International: www.earthrights.org

Environmental Defense:

www.environmentaldefense.org

Friends of the Earth Colombia:

www.censat.org/Index_DDHH_DDAA.htm (Spanish)

Friends of the Earth International: www.foei.org

Friends of the Earth Spain Ecoigualdad site:

www.ecoigualdad.org (Spanish)

International Federation for Human Rights:

www.fidh.org (English, French, Spanish)

International Labor Rights Fund: www.laborrights.org

International Rivers Network: www.irn.org

Multinational Monitor:www.multinationalmonitor.org

Oilwatch: www.oilwatch.org.ec

People’s Movement for Human Rights Education:

www.pdhre.org/rights

Rainforest Action Network: www.ran.org

Sierra Club: www.sierraclub.org/human-rights

other useful sites:

The Embassy Network (embassy and consulate

addresses and links): www.emb.com

List of UN treaties with their status:

untreaty.un.org/English/TreatyEvent2002/index.htm

ww

w.foei.org

copyrigh

tfron

tcover jean

-pierre h

allet. exclusive righ

ts: susan

fassberg

(dearsooz@

yahoo.com

, ww

w.fassb

erg.com

/pygm

y)

International

Publ

ish

ed A

ugu

st, 2

004

in A

mst

erda

m, T

he

Net

her

lan

ds

Date post:	20-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	hoangdiep
View:	217 times
Download:	3 times