ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS REPORT 2007

HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE ENVIRONMENT

ABOUT EARTHJUSTICE

Earthjustice was founded in 1971 and has consultative status with the UN Economic and Social Council. We are a nonprofit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations and communities.

Earthjustice’s International Program uses the power of the law to protect the environment and human health worldwide. We represent public interest and community groups in international tribunals and domestic courts to hold corporations and governments responsible for environmental harm, prevent trade rules from undermining public health and environmental protections, and create strong tools for citizens to defend the right to a healthy environment.

This report was prepared by

Rosaleen O’Gara Marcello Mollo

J. Martin Wagner Neil Popovic Yves Lador

Hari Osofsky Shravya Reddy

Erin Ganahl Rachel Kastenberg

Sarah A. Peters David Takacs

and

Environmental Justice Course Participants, University of Oregon Law School

Earthjustice 426 17th Street

Oakland, CA 94612 U.S.A. Telephone: 510-550-6700

E-mail: eajusintl@earthjustice.org Internet: www.earthjustice.org

FREE REPRODUCTION RIGHTS WITH CITATION TO ORIGINAL.

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1 DEVELOPMENTS....................................................................................................................... 6

I. INTERNATIONAL .................................................................................................. 6 A. UN Economic and Social Council............................................................................ 8 B. UN Economic and Social Council Bodies ............................................................... 9

1. UN Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) ....................................................... 9 2. UN Commission on Sustainable Development ..................................................... 18 3. UN Commission for Social Development.............................................................. 19

C. United Nations General Assembly......................................................................... 20 1. World Summit 2005................................................................................................ 20 2. 60th Session of the General Assembly.................................................................... 21 3. 61st Session of the General Assembly .................................................................... 23 4. UN Human Rights Council .................................................................................... 24 5. Other United Nations General Assembly Events................................................. 24 6. UN General Assembly Bodies ................................................................................ 25

D. Other International Bodies .................................................................................... 29 1. The World Bank...................................................................................................... 29 2. World Health Organization (WHO) ..................................................................... 35 3. Global Environmental Facility (GEF) .................................................................. 36 4. International Labour Organization ...................................................................... 37 5. Group of Eight (G8)................................................................................................ 39 6. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) ........ 40

E. International Treaties, Treaty Bodies and International Conferences.............. 41 1. The Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-

making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Århus Convention) 41 2. Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movement of Hazardous

Wastes and their Disposal ...................................................................................... 42 3. Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)...................... 43 4. Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain

Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade............................. 44 5. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Cartagena Protocol ... 45 6. The Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) .................................................................. 46 7. The Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol ....... 47 8. The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification ............................... 48 9. The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands .................................................................. 49

II. REGIONAL............................................................................................................. 50 A. Africa........................................................................................................................ 50

1. “Fish for All” Summit ............................................................................................ 50 B. Asia ........................................................................................................................... 51

1. The Jakarta Declaration......................................................................................... 51 C. Central Asia & the Middle East ............................................................................ 51

1. Formation of Arab Forum for Environment and Development (AFED) .......... 51 D. Central and South America ................................................................................... 52

1. Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) .......................................... 52

2. Inter-American Court of Human Rights .............................................................. 54 3. Initiative for the Integration of Regional Infrastructure in Latin America

(IIRSA)..................................................................................................................... 56 4. Andean Free Trade Agreement ............................................................................. 58

E. Europe...................................................................................................................... 59 1. European Court of Human Rights ........................................................................ 59 2. European Commission............................................................................................ 61

F. Island Nations.......................................................................................................... 66 1. Antarctica / Southern Ocean – Treaty on Illegal Fishing ................................... 66 2. Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate ........................... 67 3. South Pacific Regional Environment Programme............................................... 67

G. North America......................................................................................................... 68 1. North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) ....... 68

III. DOMESTIC............................................................................................................. 70 A. Courts....................................................................................................................... 70

1. Nigeria...................................................................................................................... 70 2. South Africa............................................................................................................. 71 3. Botswana.................................................................................................................. 72 4. Chile ......................................................................................................................... 73 5. Australia................................................................................................................... 73 6. United States............................................................................................................ 74 7. Peru .......................................................................................................................... 76 8. Argentina ................................................................................................................. 76

B. Governments ........................................................................................................... 77 1. Brazil ........................................................................................................................ 77 2. Swaziland................................................................................................................. 78 3. Liberia...................................................................................................................... 78 4. Kenya ....................................................................................................................... 80 5. Chile ......................................................................................................................... 80 6. Russia ....................................................................................................................... 81 7. Spain......................................................................................................................... 82 8. Australia................................................................................................................... 82 9. Fiji............................................................................................................................. 83 10. United States............................................................................................................ 84

CASE STUDIES.......................................................................................................................... 85 IV. GLOBAL ISSUES................................................................................................... 85

A. Natural Disasters and the Loss of Coastal Barriers ............................................ 85 B. Shipbreaking ........................................................................................................... 86 C. Illegal Recycling of Electronic Waste.................................................................... 87

V. AFRICA................................................................................................................... 89 A. Ghana....................................................................................................................... 89

1. Mining in Obuasi..................................................................................................... 89 B. Sudan........................................................................................................................ 90

1. Hydropower Development ..................................................................................... 90 C. Ivory Coast .............................................................................................................. 92

1. Toxic Sludge Dumping ........................................................................................... 92

VI. ASIA......................................................................................................................... 93 A. Indonesia.................................................................................................................. 93

1. Mine Tailing Pollution............................................................................................ 93 B. Burma (Myanmar).................................................................................................. 94

1. Damming the Salween River.................................................................................. 94 C. China ........................................................................................................................ 95

1. Chemical Spill in Harbin........................................................................................ 95 2. Three Gorges Dam.................................................................................................. 97

D. India ......................................................................................................................... 98 1. Battle Between Rural Communities and Coca-Cola Bottling Plants ................. 98

E. Kazakhstan .............................................................................................................. 99 1. Nuclear Contamination .......................................................................................... 99

F. Lebanon ................................................................................................................. 100 1. Oil Leak.................................................................................................................. 100

VII. EUROPE................................................................................................................ 101 A. Russia ..................................................................................................................... 101

1. Oil and Gas Projects on Sakhalin Island ............................................................ 101 B. Romania ................................................................................................................. 103

1. Gold Mining near Rosia Montana....................................................................... 103 VIII. ISLAND NATIONS .............................................................................................. 104

A. Australia................................................................................................................. 104 1. Hazelwood Coal Fired Power Plant .................................................................... 104 2. Nuclear Waste Facility ......................................................................................... 106

B. New Zealand.......................................................................................................... 107 1. Dioxin Contamination .......................................................................................... 107

IX. NORTH AMERICA ............................................................................................. 108 A. United States.......................................................................................................... 108

1. Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge ................................................. 108 2. Hurricane Katrina ................................................................................................ 108 3. Oregon’s Chemical Weapons Incineration Program ........................................ 110 4. The Inuit and Global Climate Change................................................................ 111

B. Mexico .................................................................................................................... 112 1. La Parota Dam ...................................................................................................... 112

C. Canada ................................................................................................................... 113 1. Toxic Spraying at New Brunswick Army Base .................................................. 113

X. CENTRAL & SOUTH AMERICA ..................................................................... 114 A. Ecuador.................................................................................................................. 114

1. Groundwater Pollution in the Amazon............................................................... 114 2. Cotacachi Mine...................................................................................................... 115 3. Yasuní National Park ........................................................................................... 116

B. Peru ........................................................................................................................ 117 1. Lead Smelter in La Oroya.................................................................................... 117

C. Brazil ...................................................................................................................... 119 1. Shrimp Farming Industry.................................................................................... 119

D. Colombia................................................................................................................ 120 1. Plan Colombia ....................................................................................................... 120

E. Guatemala.............................................................................................................. 122 1. Glamis Goldmine .................................................................................................. 122

F. Venezuela ............................................................................................................... 124 1. Mining on Indigenous Lands, Northwestern Venezuela ................................... 124

APPENDIX................................................................................................................................ 126

INTRODUCTION There should be no doubt that human activities can and do cause serious environmental

problems, or that those problems, in turn, often result in grave harm to human beings. Conversely, a clean and healthy environment is essential to the realization of fundamental human rights and yields great benefits for human beings.

The community of nations has not ignored the essential connection between human rights and the environment. This report (the 15th of its kind) highlights recent developments from international, regional and domestic bodies from the beginning of 2005 through December, 2006 in the area of human rights and the environment.1 As a sampling – but only a sampling – of situations occurring during this time period, this report illustrates the interdependence of human rights and the environment and shows repeated and increasing recognition of a human rights-based approach to environmental protection. Such recognition demonstrates that the right to a clean and healthy environment, whether as a separately codified right or through the application of other human rights to environmental harms, is emerging as an important component of international law.2 The relationship between environmental problems and human rights calls for a holistic treatment of these issues. Therefore, international, governmental and non-governmental institutions dedicated to protecting human rights must recognize the connection and provide mechanisms to address the human rights implications of environmental problems. As a world leader in the protection of human rights, the UN Human Rights Council should set the standard and the pace for such recognition and, further, guarantee the right to a clean and healthy environment.

Background

In July 1994, Ms. Fatma Zohra Ksentini (now Ms. Ouhachi-Vesely), Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment for the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, issued her Final Report to the Sub-Commission.3 The Final Report was the culmination of a study process initiated in 1989, when several non-governmental organizations presented information to the Sub-Commission regarding the need for all human rights bodies at the United Nations to study the connections between human rights and the environment. In response, the Sub-Commission asked Ms. Ouhachi-Vesely, then a member of the Sub-Commission, to prepare a study on the relationship between human rights and the environment.4 At its next session, the Commission on Human Rights adopted a resolution (1990/41), which welcomed the Sub-Commission’s decision to have Ms. Ouhachi-Vesely prepare a note on human rights and the environment.

Ms. Ouhachi-Vesely presented her note to the Sub-Commission in 1990, and the Sub-Commission responded by appointing her to be Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the 1 Due to the restructuring of the UN Commission on Human Rights and the creation of the Human Rights Council, the timeframe of this report was extended beyond its regular calendar year cycle. For relevant developments preceding this period, please see previous reports prepared by Earthjustice (known until 1997 as the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund), available upon request or at www.earthjustice.org. 2 International legal norms typically arise from international conventions, international custom, or as general principles of law recognized by civilized nations. See Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ Statute), June 26, 1945, 59 Stat. 1055, T.S. No. 993, 3 Bevans 1179, art. 38(1). Weight is also accorded to the judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law. 3 E/CN.4/Sub.2/1994/9. 4 E/CN.4/Sub.2/1989/58, at 71 (Sub-Comm’n Dec. 1989/108).

1

Environment and assigning her the task of preparing a comprehensive report on the relationship between human rights and the environment.5 Again, the Commission endorsed the Sub-Commission’s action and Ms. Ouhachi-Vesely commenced work as Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment.6 Ms. Ouhachi-Vesely produced a Preliminary Report in 19917 and Progress Reports in 19928 and 1993.9

In her Final Report, Ms. Ouhachi-Vesely described the legal foundations for environmental human rights and related a range of examples of the interconnectedness of human rights and the environment. In May 1994, the Meeting of Experts on Human Rights and the Environment held at the United Nations in Geneva produced the Draft Declaration of Principles on Human Rights and the Environment. The Draft Declaration of Principles expresses the environmental content of a broad spectrum of recognized human rights norms and maps out the content of the right to a secure, healthy and ecologically sound environment, including both substantive and procedural components.

In her conclusions, Ms. Ouhachi-Vesely noted that environmental damage has direct effects on the enjoyment of a series of human rights and that human rights violations in turn may damage the environment. Ms. Ouhachi-Vesely recommended that the human rights component of environmental rights immediately be incorporated into the work of various human rights bodies. She also recommended that the Centre for Human Rights (now the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights) establish a coordination center to deal with human rights and the environment, that the Commission on Human Rights appoint a thematic Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment, and that a seminar be held under the auspices of the Centre to formulate practical recommendations on how environmental rights can be incorporated into the activities of human rights bodies. Finally, Ms. Ouhachi-Vesely recommended that the Draft Declaration of Principles serve as the starting point for adoption of a set of legal norms consolidating the right to a satisfactory environment.

The Sub-Commission specifically welcomed Ms. Ouhachi-Vesely’s conclusions and recommendations, as well as the Draft Declaration of Principles, and transmitted the Final Report to the Commission on Human Rights. The Final Report included a recommendation that the Commission publish and disseminate the Final Report and appoint a Commission-level Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment, with a mandate to monitor, receive communications, investigate and make recommendations on situations involving human rights and the environment; and to seek comments on the Draft Declaration of Principles.10

In that posture, the question of human rights and the environment came before the Commission at its fifty-first session in 1995. The Commission took note of Ms. Ouhachi-Vesely’s Final Report, but rather than immediately following the Special Rapporteur’s or the Sub-Commission’s recommendations, the Commission issued a call for comments on issues raised in the Final Report and continued its consideration of human rights and the environment to the next session, in 1996.11 On a related topic, in 1995 the Commission appointed a new Special 5 See Sub-Comm’n Res. 1990/7. 6 See Comm’n Res. 1991/44. 7 E/CN.4/Sub.2/1991/8. 8 E/CN.4/Sub.2/1992/7. 9 E/CN.4/Sub.2/1993/7. 10 See Sub-Comm’n Res. 1994/27. 11 Comm’n Res. 1995/14.

2

Rapporteur, with a three-year mandate to examine the human rights effects of illicit traffic and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes.12 Ms. Ouhachi-Vesely was appointed to this new position.

When the Commission met in 1996, the Centre for Human Rights had received comments from eight governments, eight United Nations departments and five non-governmental organizations on issues raised in Ms. Ouhachi-Vesely’s Final Report on human rights and the environment.13 The Commission renewed its request for comments and again asked the Secretary General to prepare a report summarizing whatever comments were received.14 The 1996 session of the Commission also received and considered the first report of the Special Rapporteur on Adverse Effects of the Illicit Movement and Dumping of Toxic and Dangerous Products and Wastes on the Enjoyment of Human Rights, in which the Special Rapporteur explained her mandate and reported on her plans for carrying it out.15

In advance of its 1997 session, the Commission received comments on issues raised in Ms. Ouhachi-Vesely’s final report from an additional five governments, three United Nations Departments, one regional organization and one non-governmental organization.16 At the 1997 session, the Commission adopted a Decision (1997/102) on human rights and the environment, by which it deferred action on the issue until its fifty-fifth session and invited the Secretary General to bring the Commission’s consideration of human rights and the environment to the attention of the General Assembly at its special session on Agenda 21, the Commission on Sustainable Development, the United Nations Environment Programme and other relevant bodies and organizations. The Commission further requested that the Secretary General prepare a report on the General Assembly special session and the listed international bodies and organizations.

The Commission also received the Toxics Rapporteur’s progress report, in which she reported on various situations involving the human rights effects of toxics.17 In light of its 1997 Decision to defer consideration, the Commission did not address the question of human rights and the environment as such at its 1998 session. The Commission did, however, receive written statements and hear oral interventions from governments, international organizations and nongovernmental organizations that evidenced the recurring overlap between human rights and the environment. The Commission also received a 1998 progress report from the Special Rapporteur on toxics and human rights, in which she addressed a range of cases and incidents involving the human rights impact of toxics.18 The Commission adopted Resolution 1998/12, in which it renewed the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on human rights and toxics for a period of three years,

in order that she may continue to undertake, in consultation with the relevant United Nations bodies and organizations and the secretariats of relevant

12 See Comm’n Res. 1995/181. 13 It appears that logistical difficulties within the Centre for Human Rights prevented the timely transmission of at least some of the Centre’s letters requesting comments. The comments are summarized in E/CN.4/1996/23 & Add. 1 & Add. 2. 14 Comm’n Res. 1996/13. 15 E/CN.4/1996/17. 16 E/CN.4/1997/18. 17 E/CN.4/199719. 18 E/CN.4/1998/10.

3

international conventions, a global, multidisciplinary and comprehensive study of existing problems of and solutions to illicit traffic in and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes, in particular in developing countries.

In advance of its fifty-fifth session, the Commission received a report on human rights and the environment from the Secretary-General, as the Commission had requested in 1997. The report includes a review of the General Assembly special session on Agenda 21 and it reports on comments received by the Secretary-General from the Food and Agriculture Organization.19 The Secretary-General report did not make any recommendations regarding the Commission’s continuing consideration of human rights and the environment. In another pre-session document, however, the Bureau of the Commission recommended that the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on toxics and human rights be converted to a mandate on human rights and the environment.20

A similar recommendation was made in February 2000 by the Commission’s inter-session open-ended Working Group on Enhancing the Effectiveness of the Mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights, which recommended the conversion of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the adverse effects of the illicit movement of toxic waste to that of human rights and the environment. The Working Group recommended further that “the Commission be prepared to consider a broadening of the mandate” in 2001, noting that “the subject matter of an extended mandate would, however, need to be more precisely defined than ‘human rights and the environment.’”21 The issue of converting the Special Rapporteur’s mandate reflects the growing understanding that the full enjoyment of human rights requires addressing a broad range of environmental problems – including but not limited to problems related to toxic wastes – because such problems implicate a host of fundamental human rights.

At the fifty-seventh session of the Commission in 2001, the Special Rapporteur presented her report on the Adverse Effects of the Illicit Dumping and Movement of Dangerous Products and Wastes on the Enjoyment of Human Rights.22 In her report, the Special Rapporteur stated, “Human rights bodies must remain vigilant for human rights violations associated with the activities of multinational corporations, toxic wastes, and other environmental problems. Supervisory mechanisms should be strengthened and codification efforts continued.”23 However, after the Commission took note of the Rapporteur’s report, it decided not to convert but rather to renew the existing mandate for the three years ending April 2004, and to continue consideration of this question at its fifty-eighth session.24

Similarly, at its fifty-eighth session in April 2002, the Commission reaffirmed “that illicit traffic in and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes constitute a serious threat to the human rights to life and the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical health.” However, the Commission did not address the question of converting the mandate, deciding

19 E/CN.4/1999/89. 20 E/CN.4/1999/104 at para. 20(b). 21 UN Comm’n on Human Rights. [UNCHR], Report of the inter-sessional open-ended Working Group on Enhancing the Effectiveness of the Mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2000/112 (Feb. 16, 2000). 22 E/CN.4/2001/55. 23 Id. at para. 104. 24 E/CN.4/Res/2001/35.

4

instead to continue consideration of the question at its fifty-ninth session.25 At the fifty-ninth session, the Commission repeated the fifty-eighth session Resolution in its entirety.26 In April 2004, at the sixtieth session, the Commission renewed the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for an additional three years.27 In July 2004, the Commission appointed Okechukwu Ibeanu to assume the role of Special Rapporteur.

In December 2004, Mr. Ibeanu submitted his first report to the sixty-first session of the Commission on Human Rights.28 During the Commission’s sixty-first annual session between 14 March to 22 April 2005, the Commission reaffirmed the Special Rapporteur’s mandate and decided to continue consideration of the question of the mandate at its sixty-second session.29

In March, 2006, the UN General Assembly (GA) established the new Human Rights Council as a subsidiary body of the GA to replace the Commission on Human Rights.30 On March 27, the Commission on Human Rights concluded its sixty-second and final session, before ceding responsibilities to the new Human Rights Council. During the Commission’s last session, it referred all reports, including that of the Special Rapporteur, to the newly formed Human Rights Council.31

During its first session, the Human Rights Council extended all mandates, mechanisms, functions and responsibilities of the Commission on Human Rights, including the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Toxics.32

25 E/CN.4/2002/27. 26 E/CN.4/2003/20. 27 E/CN.4/2004/L.11/Add.3, para. 14 at 8. 28 E/CN.4/2005/45. 29 E/CN.4/2005/135 30 A/RES/60/251 31 E/CN.4/2006/122 32 A/HRC/1/L.10/Add.1

5

DEVELOPMENTS

I. INTERNATIONAL Actions and statements from international bodies continue to shape the emerging

customary international right to a clean and healthy environment. Explicit and implicit evidence of such actions and statements can be found in international court decisions, treaties, resolutions, and reports from commissions, committees, secretariats, specialized agencies and similar entities. A review of these materials demonstrates increasing recognition that environmental harms adversely affect various individual and community rights such as the rights to life, health, water, food, work, culture, development, and information and participation, and that a human rights-based approach to environmental protection (e.g., right to a clean and healthy environment, right to water, right to nature protection, and other basic procedural and democratic rights) can provide an effective framework for addressing these issues. Whether explicit or implicit, the growing practice of upholding and encouraging respect for the right to a clean and healthy environment is important and should be recognized and strengthened. The following is a description of some recognized human rights affected by environmental harms – and examples of the failure of governmental and private actors to take adequate measures to protect those rights. Reference to many of these rights is made in specific case studies discussed in the second part of this Environmental Rights Report.

Right to Life

The right to life, perhaps the most basic human right, has extensive environmental links. The most obvious connections manifest themselves in situations such as the Chernobyl nuclear disaster and the Bhopal gas leak, each of which fouled the environment in ways that directly contributed to the loss of many lives. Less obvious but equally devastating, extractive industries such as mining, logging and oil development deprive indigenous peoples of the physical basis for their cultures and subsistence, and thereby threaten their lives.

Right to Health The right to health, closely linked to the right to life, is implicated when environmental

degradation pollutes air, land or water. For example, a poorly regulated aluminum smelter in the community of La Oroya, Peru, is causing severe lead contamination among local children, resulting in a slew of physical problems and endangering the health of local residents.

Right to Water

The right to water is intrinsically linked to the rights to life and health. Without access to clean drinking, cooking and bathing water in adequate quantities, individuals and communities worldwide suffer serious illnesses. For example, toxic oil water dumped in the Ecuadorian Amazon between 1971 to 1992, has contaminated the groundwater that residents of the Oriente region of Ecuador rely on, interfering with their right to water.

Right to Work

Along with deprivation of natural resources often comes deprivation of the right to work. When mangroves are destroyed due to poor shrimp farming practices in Brazil, for example, it devastates the marine environment and damages fish stocks, putting local fishermen out of work.

6

Right to Culture

Environmental degradation also implicates the right to culture. Some of the most glaring examples of cultural deprivations involve indigenous peoples, whose lifestyles often depend on their relationship with the natural environment. The impacts of climate change on the Arctic environment, for example, have disproportionate effects on Inuit culture, as the Inuit way of life is closely linked to environmental conditions.

Right to Development

The right to development and the right to a healthy environment share considerable common ground. Although purely economic development activities often have negative environmental effects, a holistic model of sustainable development recognizes that environmentally destructive economic progress does not produce long-term societal progress. Thus, for example, oil development in Ecuador might bring a short-term influx of capital, but depletion of the country’s natural resources ultimately interferes with the ability of the population – particularly indigenous peoples who live off the land – to develop.

Right to Information

The right to information in the environmental context has at least two components: the right to obtain government-held information on request, and the government’s affirmative duty to apprise the people of environmental dangers and emergencies. For instance, information about a chemical spill in the city of Harbin, China, was kept from residents in communities downstream, threatening their health and lives through a violation of the right to information.

Right to Participate

The right to information is itself a component of the right to public participation, which includes everything from suffrage to direct participation in planning of development activities. This right comes into play whenever a government makes an environmentally significant decision without providing meaningful opportunities for affected parties to participate. Andean citizens, for example, have been denied their right to participate in negotiations over the Andean Free Trade Agreement, which will have broad environmental impacts that may threaten their lives and well-being.

Right to Shelter and Housing

The right to shelter and adequate housing is necessarily implicated when environmental degradation displaces individuals and communities or compels them to live in unhealthy, hazardous conditions. The European Court of Human Rights, for example, recently confirmed the states’ obligation to relocate persons whose homes had been fouled by environmental pollution.

The examples of environmental aspects of recognized human rights described throughout this report reflects only a sampling of the many connections between human rights and environmental protection. Other substantive areas that combine human rights and environmental considerations include: humanitarian law, the rights of indigenous peoples, the plight of environmental refugees, and the effects of development projects funded by multilateral development banks.

7

A. UN Economic and Social Council

The United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) coordinates the work of fourteen UN agencies, ten functional commissions, and five regional commissions; receives reports from eleven UN funds and programs; and issues policy recommendations to the UN system and its member states. Under the UN Charter, the Council is responsible for: promoting higher standards of living, full employment, and economic and social progress; identifying solutions to international economic, social and health problems; facilitating international cultural and educational cooperation; and encouraging universal respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. In the context of each of these functions, environment-related human rights issues regularly arise. The Council has taken action in this context that further demonstrates the emerging right to a clean and healthy environment.33

During the 2005 session, the Council tabled the Secretary General’s report entitled “Achieving the internationally agreed development goals, including those contained in the Millennium Declaration, as well as implementing the outcomes of the major United Nations conferences and summits: progress made, challenges and opportunities.”34 The report underscored the links between the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) and a broader development agenda that includes health, environment, and human rights.35 Furthermore, the report stressed the “indivisibility and interrelatedness” of development and human rights, thereby recognizing environmental rights within the wider human rights framework.36 The report urged member states to take proactive steps in conserving the natural resource base of the Earth.37 The “Annual Report of the Executive Director of the World Food Programme (WFP) for 2004” was also presented at the 2005 session. This report reiterated the WFP’s commitment to the right to food, and the Secretary-General’s report on “Coordinated Implementation of the Habitat Agenda,” which reaffirms UN-Habitat’s commitment to the MDG of “Ensuring Environmental Sustainability” and identifies housing rights as a research priority.38

During the 2006 session, the Council adopted a number of resolutions and decisions, some of which focused on the MDGs. In Resolution 2006/17, Social dimensions of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development, ECOSOC specifically emphasized respect for all human rights, including the right to development, and “that economic development, social development and environmental protection are interdependent and mutually reinforcing components of sustainable development.”39 The high-level segment of the 2006 session, which was attended by 33 See UN Econ. & Soc. Council [ECOSOC], What ECOSOC Does (2005), http://www.un.org/esa/coordination/ecosoc/about.htm. 34 See UN Econ. & Soc. Council [ECOSOC], Towards achieving internationally agreed development goals, including those contained in the Millennium Declaration, UN DOC. E/2005/56 (May 3, 2005), available at http://www.un.org/docs/ecosoc/documents.asp?id=846. 35 Id. at 2. 36 Id. para. 5 at 7. 37 Id. paras. 40-49 at 19-20. 38 See UN Econ. & Soc. Council [ECOSOC], Annual Report of the Executive Director of the World Food Programme (WFP) for 2004, 27, UN DOC. E/2005/14 (March 23, 2005), available at http://www.un.org/docs/ecosoc/documents.asp?id=873; see also UN Econ. & Soc. Council [ECOSOC], Coordinated Implementation of the Habitat Agenda, para. 8 at 5, UN DOC. E/2005/60 (May 12, 2005), available at http://www.un.org/docs/ecosoc/documents.asp?id=895. 39 See UN Econ. & Soc. Council [ECOSOC], Social dimensions of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development, UN DOC. E/2006/17 (July 26, 2006), available at http://www.un.org/docs/ecosoc/documents/2006/resolutions/Resolution%202006-17.pdf

8

over thirty ministers, included the adoption of a declaration recognizing the importance of generating full and productive employment for sustainable development.40 Taking into consideration recent rises in global unemployment, the ministers declared that employment was an essential component of eliminating poverty and meeting the MDGs.41 The ministers reiterated the right to work and the right to sustainable development.42

During the 2006 session, ECOSOC also issued a Resolution recognizing the connection between illicit drug cultivation and eradication, sustainable development, and environmental health.43 The Resolution notes “with concern that in some Member States illicit crop cultivation and illicit drug production degrade, among other things, forest areas, areas under environmental protection, and areas used for licit crops, causing serious environmental damage.” The Resolution calls for Member States to include efforts for “preventive alternative development” that helps farmers cultivating or susceptible to cultivating illicit narcotics to develop alternative, sustainable livelihoods, while implementing environmental protection and sustainable forestry management.44

B. UN Economic and Social Council Bodies In its consolidated report of the Functional Commissions of ECOSOC for the year 2005,

ECOSOC urged all its commissions to mainstream the concept of sustainable development in their work and to fully integrate environment and natural resource management in broader national priorities and development planning processes,45 thereby demonstrating the growing importance of environmental rights.

1. UN Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR)

a. 61st Session The Commission held its sixty-first session between March 14 and April 22, 2005, during

which it examined numerous reports and passed many recommendations pertinent to environmental human rights including the right to a clean and healthy environment.46

i. Resolution 2005/4 Resolution 2005/4, entitled “Right to Development” reviewed the role of the UN working

40 UN Econ. & Soc. Council [ECOSOC],Creating an environment at the national and international levels conducive to generating full and productive employment and decent work for all, and its impact on sustainable development, UN Doc. E/2006/L.8 (July 5, 2006), available at http://www.un.org/docs/ecosoc/jump2ods.asp?symbol=E/2006/L.8. 41 Id. at ¶ 22. 42 Id. at ¶ 22. 43 See UN Econ. & Soc. Council [ECOSOC], Strengthening international cooperation for alternative development, including preventive alternative development, with due regard for environmental protection, UN Doc E/2006/33, (July 26, 2006), available at http://www.un.org/docs/ecosoc/documents/2006/resolutions/Resolution%202006-33.pdf 44 Id. 45 See UN Econ. & Soc. Council [ECOSOC], Consolidated Report on the Work of Functional Commissions of the Economic and Social Council, para. 45 at 11, UN DOC. E/2005/74, (June 20, 2005), available at http://www.un.org/docs/ecosoc/documents.asp?id=898. 46 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Resolutions Adopted at the 61st Session, available at http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/sdpage_e.aspx?b=1&se=59&t=11, (last visited Feb. 26, 2006).

9

group on the right to development and endorsed the working group’s recommendations and conclusions.47 The Resolution’s request to the High Commissioner to mainstream the right to development48 expressed recognition of growing jurisprudence in this field, including the right’s constituent elements such as environmental security and sustainability. This concern for the right to development was mirrored in the report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to the Commission on Human Rights,49 wherein the High Commissioner pledged her office’s continued support to the working group on the right to development and stated that there was a need to elaborate upon the links between development and food, housing, and health.50 In 2005 the Commission devoted considerable resources to mainstreaming the right to development and to improving inter-agency coordination on implementing the right. 51 The Commissioner’s report on the right to development enumerated many measures the Commission undertook in pursuit of this goal, including a high-level seminar on the right to development,52 meetings of the working group on the right to development,53 assistance to the Independent Expert on the right to development,54 preparation of concept documents for the sub-commission on the right to development,55 constitution of a high-level task-force on the right to development,56 and publication of numerous papers on the issue.

ii. Resolution 2005/15

The office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights adopted Resolution 2005/15 concerning the “Adverse effects of the illicit movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes on the enjoyment of human rights.”57 The Resolution

47 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Resolution 2005/4: The right to Development, para. 4 at 2, UN DOC. E/CN.4/RES/2005/4 (April 12, 2005), available at http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/E/CHR/resolutions/E-CN_4-RES-2005-4.doc. 48 Id. para. 10 at 3. 49 See UN Econ. & Soc. Council [ECOSOC], UN Comm’n on Human Rights, Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and Follow-up to the World Conference on Human Rights, paras. 29-30 at 9, UN DOC. E/CN.4/2005/12, (March 8, 2005), available at http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/sdpage_e.aspx?b=1&se=59&t=9, (go to page 2, then follow English language hyperlink for “Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and follow-up to the World Conference on Human Rights”). 50 Id. 51 See UN Econ. & Soc. Council [ECOSOC], UN Comm’n on Human Rights, The Right to Development: Report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, UN DOC. E/CN.4/2005/24 (Jan. 5, 2005), available at http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/sdpage_e.aspx?b=1&se=59&t=9 (go to page 4, then follow English language hyperlink for “The right to development - Report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights”). 52 Id. para. 4 at 4. 53 Id. para. 6 at 4; see also UN Econ. & Soc. Council [ECOSOC], UN Comm’n on Human Rights, The Right to Development: Report of the Working Group on the Right to Development, UN DOC. E/CN.4/2005/25 (March 3, 2005), available at http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/sdpage_e.aspx?b=1&se=59&t=9 (go to page 4, then follow English language hyperlink for “Report of the Working Group on the Right to Development on its sixth session”). 54 Id. para. 7 at 5. 55 Id. para. 9 at 5; see also UN Econ. & Soc. Council [ECOSOC], UN Comm’n on Human Rights, Concept Paper on the Right to Development, UN DOC. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2005/23 (June 24, 2005), available at http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/subcom/57/aevdoc.htm (Item 5, then follow English language hyperlink for “Working paper by Ms. O' Connor on the right to development”). 56 Id. para. 11 at 6. 57 See Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Resolution 2005/15: Adverse effects of the illicit movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes on the enjoyment of human rights,

10

urged human rights bodies to be more systematic in addressing violations of rights associated with the practices of multinational companies, toxic waste, and other environmental problems.58 Furthermore, it categorically condemned illicit dumping in developing countries and encouraged developed countries and financial institutions to help Africa combat this problem.59 The Resolution urged governments to take appropriate legislative and other measures in accordance with their international obligations, to prevent the illegal international trafficking in toxic and hazardous products and wastes from developed to developing countries, and urged nations that have not yet become party to the Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions to do so.60 Moreover, it required that all governments ban the export of toxic and dangerous products, substances, chemicals, pesticides, and persistent organic pollutants that are banned or severely restricted in their own countries. The Resolution also urged states to strengthen the role of national environmental protection agencies and non-governmental organizations, local communities and associations, trade unions, workers, and victims, and to provide them with the legal and financial means to take necessary action.61

iii. Resolution 2005/18

Resolution 2005/18 on the right to food reaffirmed that hunger constitutes a violation of human dignity and, therefore, requires the adoption of urgent measures at the national, regional and international levels for its elimination.62 The Resolution was passed in response to the latest report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food,63 submitted to the Commission in January 2005. The report took a positive view of the voluntary guidelines on the right to food adopted in 2004, and reiterated their importance.64 In doing so, it reaffirmed essential elements of the guidelines,65 including the pursuit of “inclusive, non-discriminatory and sound economic, agriculture, fisheries, forestry, land use, and, as appropriate, land reform policies” by states,66 the directive to states to take account of the shortcomings of market mechanisms in protecting the environment and public goods,67 and rights to land, water, forests, fisheries, and livestock – keeping in mind the special ties certain groups have to natural resources.68

iv. Resolution 2005/24 The Commission on Human Rights adopted Resolution 2005/24, entitled “The right of

UN DOC. E/CN.4/RES/2005/15 (April 15, 2005), available at http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/E/CHR/resolutions/E-CN_4-RES-2005-15.doc. 58 Id. para. 14 at 4. 59 Id. para. 7 at 3. 60 Id. para. 5 at 2, para. 11 at 4. 61 Id. para. 12 at 4. 62 See Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Resolution 2005/18: The Right to Food, para. 2 at 2, UN DOC. E/CN.4/RES/2005/18 (April 15, 2005), available at http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/E/CHR/resolutions/E-CN_4-RES-2005-18.doc. 63 UN Econ. & Soc. Council [ECOSOC], UN Comm’n on Human Rights, The Right to Food: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, UN DOC E/CN.4/2005/47, (Jan. 24, 2005), available at http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/sdpage_e.aspx?b=1&se=59&t=9, (go to page 6, then follow English language hyperlink for “Report of Jean Ziegler, Special Rapporteur on the right to food”). 64 Id. at 2. 65 Id. para. 32 at 11. 66 Id. at Guideline 2.5. 67 Id. at Guideline 4.10. 68 Id. at Guideline 8.1.

11

everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.” The Resolution urges states to take steps, individually and through international assistance and cooperation, to achieve the full realization of the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.69 The resolution emphasizes that access to a sufficient amount of safe, clean water for personal and domestic use and adequate nutrition is fundamental to the realization of the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health.70

v. Resolution 2005/49 In Resolution 2005/49, the Commission commended the work of the Working Group on

Indigenous Populations of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and reaffirmed its commitment to the advancement of indigenous peoples’ rights, including their environmental rights.71 The Resolution also emphasized the urgency of adopting the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People – which contains the rights to environment and health – “as soon as possible.”72

vi. Resolution 2005/60

Resolution 2005/60, entitled “Human rights and the environment as part of sustainable development,” reaffirmed the Commission’s opinion that peace, security, stability and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the right to development, as well as respect for cultural diversity, are essential for achieving and assuring that sustainable development benefits all.73 The resolution stressed the importance for states, when developing their environmental policies, to take into account how environmental degradation may affect all members of society, in particular women, children, indigenous peoples and disadvantaged members of society.74 In addition, it reiterated the need for good governance in the approach to sustainable development75 and urged further coordination between environmental and human rights mechanisms within the United Nations framework so as to better achieve these goals.76

vii. Decision 2005/112 Through Decision 2005/112, the Commission endorsed the “Working paper on the legal

implications of the disappearance of states and other territories for environmental reasons,

69 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Resolution 2005/24: The right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, para. 1 at 5, UN DOC. E/CN.4/RES/2005/24 (April 15, 2005), available at http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/E/CHR/resolutions/E-CN_4-RES-2005-24.doc. 70 Id. para. 17 at 6. 71 See Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Resolution 2005/49: Working Group on Indigenous Populations of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, UN DOC. E/CN.4/RES/2005/49 (April 20, 2005), available at http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/E/CHR/resolutions/E-CN_4-RES-2005-49.doc. 72 Id. para. 11 at 5. 73 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Resolution 2005/60: Human rights and the environment as part of sustainable development, para. 2 at 2, UN DOC. E/CN.4/RES/2005/60 (April 20, 2005), available at http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/E/CHR/resolutions/E-CN_4-RES-2005-60.doc. 74 Id. para. 3 at 2. 75 Id. para. 6 at 2. 76 Id. paras. 7-9 at 3.

12

including the implications for the human rights of their residents, with particular reference to the rights of indigenous peoples.”77 It recommended to the Secretary General that all possible assistance must be provided for the expansion and continuation of the study.

b. 62nd Session

In its sixty-second session, the Commission issued a number of documents that addressed the intersection of human rights, sustainable development, and environmental protection.

In the Report of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights on its Fifty-Seventh Session, (held from July 25 to August 12, 2005),78 the Commission endorsed a working paper on “[t]he legal implications of the disappearance of States and other territories for environmental reasons, including the implications for the human rights of their residents, with particular reference to the rights of indigenous peoples.” 79 It also appointed a Special Rapporteur with the task of preparing a comprehensive study on the same topic.

The Commission also issued a report titled “Adverse effects of the illicit movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes on the enjoyment of human rights.”80 The report “affirmed that the illicit movement of toxic and dangerous products constitutes a serious threat to human rights, including the rights to life and to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health”81 and noted that “other human rights can be affected by such products, including the rights to food, adequate housing, clean water, and safe and healthy working conditions, particularly in developing countries that do not have the technologies to process and handle such products in an environmentally safe manner.”82

A report issued by the Commission on human rights and indigenous issues83 addressed the lack, inadequacy or inefficiency of mechanisms for evaluating and monitoring the application of human rights standards in the implementation of development projects and programmes or legislation that affect indigenous peoples, their lands, territories, resources and environment.84 The Special Rapporteur noted as an important development the December 2005 petition by the Inuit Circumpolar Conference to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights which seeks remedies for violations of the human rights of the Inuit through increasing global warming,

77 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Decision 2005/112: Legal implications of disappearance of States and other territories for environmental reasons, including the implications for the human rights of their residents, with particular reference to the rights of indigenous peoples, UN DOC. E/CN.4/DUN EC/2005/112 (April 22, 2005), available at http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/E/CHR/decisions/E-CN_4-DEC-2005-112.doc. 78 Report of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights on its Fifty-Seventh Session (Geneva, 25 July-12 August 2005), E/CN.4/2006/2, E/CN.4/Sub.2/2005/44 (17 October 2005), available at http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G05/160/31/PDF/G0516031.pdf?OpenElement 79 Id. at 38. 80 Adverse effects of the illicit movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes on the enjoyment of human rights, E/CN.4/2006/42 (20 February 2006), available at http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G06/109/55/PDF/G0610955.pdf?OpenElement. 81 Id. at 7. 82 Id. 83 Human rights and indigenous issues: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, Mr. Rodolfo Stavenhagen, E/CN.4/2006/78 (16 February 2006), available at http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G06/108/67/PDF/G0610867.pdf?OpenElement 84 Id. at 13.

13

partial responsibility for which they attribute to the United States and its environmental policies.85

In its report on the right to development, the Working Group on the Right to Development noted that the private sector (through transnational corporations and foreign direct investment) may negatively impact the enjoyment of human rights by degrading basic social, economic and environmental standards. 86 The group further supported recent efforts to introduce human rights standards into the conduct of local and foreign enterprises, such as the voluntary codes of conduct, the Global Compact and the “Draft norms on the responsibilities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises with regard to human rights.”87

In November 2005, the High Commissioner convened the first annual sectoral consultation on “Human rights and the extractive industry” in Geneva. The Commission adopted the report of the consultation during this session.88 The report concluded that the oil, gas and mining companies constituting the extractive industry have a significant impact on the enjoyment of human rights. In particular in “situations where local communities rely on the land and water resources for their livelihoods, the activities of the extractive industry can pose certain environmental risks if activities are not properly managed, which can affect the enjoyment of rights.”89 After reviewing a range of existing initiatives and standards that States, business and civil society had developed to strengthen corporate and State responsibility in the sector, the report discussed strengthening existing initiatives and standards and clarifying standards of corporate social responsibility for human rights.90

i. Secretary-General’s Special Representative on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations

During the sixty-second session, John Ruggie, the Special Representative on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises, submitted a draft interim report to the Commission that analyzed a sampling of recent human rights abuses in which corporations were involved and surveyed existing corporate practices and government policies to deal with such abuses.91 The report was an attempt to identify and clarify standards of corporate responsibility and the role of States in regulating these standards, and it highlighted the expanding power and social impacts of transnational corporations (TNCs), as well as the importance of involving corporations in tackling global problems such as the environment.92 Professor Ruggie identified the extractive sector (oil, gas, and mining) as the dominating source of reported abuses and acknowledged that this sector is unique in its impact because of its

85 Id. at 18. 86 Right to Development: Report of the Working Group on the Right to Development on its seventh session (Generva, 9-13 January, 2006), at 13, E/CN.4/2006/26 (22 February 2006). 87 Id. 88 Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the sectoral consultation entitled “Human rights and the extractive industry,” (November 10-11, 2005), E/CN.4/2006/92 (Dec. 19, 2005). 89 Id. at 4. 90 Id. at 10-16. 91 Draft Interim Report of the Secretary-General’s Special Representative on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, E/CN.4/2006/97 (February 2006). 92 See id. at 4.

14

“enormous and intrusive [] social and environmental footprint,”93 as well as the food and beverage industry for breaches of land tenure and water rights. Though the report argued that many norms cannot be descriptive of binding international law, it suggested that they may still affect the decisions of TNCs, and recognized that customary law regarding foreign human rights violations of TNCs may be expanding.94 The report acknowledged environmental measures as among the practices that corporations have implemented to comply with human rights standards.95

ii. Resolution 2006/1

Finally, at its sixty-second session, the UNCHR adopted Resolution 2006/1, entitled “Closure of the work of the Commission on Human Rights.”96 The Resolution takes note of General Assembly Resolution 60/251, which created the Human Rights Council, and concludes its work in accordance with the General Assembly Resolution.

c. UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights

The main subsidiary body of the UN Commission on Human Rights, the Sub-Commission was established (as the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities) by the Commission at its first session in 1947. The title was changed in 1999 to Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.97 During the 2005 session of the Sub-Commission between July 25 and August 12, developments highlighted the growing importance of environmental issues within the human rights framework.

The Sub-Commission reviewed the progress report of the ad hoc group of experts on the “Implementation of existing human rights norms and standards in the context of the fight against extreme poverty.”98 The ad-hoc group noted that poverty-eradication initiatives are inadequate in certain areas unless they address deforestation and environmental degradation, thereby integrating environmental rights into a larger body of accepted international principles.99

The Sub-Commission also examined the report of the Special Rapporteur entitled “Realization of the right to drinking water and sanitation,” which contained draft guidelines for the realization of the rights concerned.100 The report embraced the human right to a safe and

93 Id. at 6. 94 See id. at 13-15. 95 See id. at 9 (mentioning that corporations monitor supply chains to “avoid becoming implicated in the abuse of social and environmental standards, including human rights.” (emphasis added)); id. at 11 (acknowledging the concern of lending institutions with regard to both “social and environmental risk exposure”: “thirty-nine banks adher[e] to the Equator Principles for assessing and managing environmental and social risks.”). 96 UN Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Sixty-Second Session, at 1, UN DOC. E/CN.4/2006/122 (March 27, 2006), available at http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/chr/docs/English.pdf. 97 Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, available at http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/2/sc.htm (last visited Feb. 27, 2006). 98 UN Econ. & Soc. Council [ECOSOC], (UN Commission on Human Rights), Implementation of existing human rights norms and standards in the context of the fight against extreme poverty, UN DOC. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2005/20 (July 6, 2005), available at http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/subcom/57/docs/ecn4sub2-2005-20-E-final.doc. 99 Id. para. 37 at 10. 100 UN Econ. & Soc. Council [ECOSOC], UN Comm’n on Human Rights, Realization of the Right to Drinking Water and Sanitation, UN DOC. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2005/25 (July 11, 2005), available at

15

clean environment and brought it within the purview of an interconnected body of rights articulated by the draft guidelines. One guideline states that “everyone has the right to have access to adequate and safe sanitation that is conducive to the protection of public health and the environment.”101 In addition to recognizing the right to water and sanitation, the report tacitly recognized the right to information in the environmental context.102 These draft guidelines, therefore, are an important indicator that there is growing acknowledgement worldwide of the innate nexus between the rights to water, sanitation, health and environment.

On March 15, 2006 the GA resolved that all mandates, mechanisms, functions and responsibilities of the Commission on Human Rights, including the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, were assumed, as of 19 June 2006, by the newly established Human Rights Council. The Human Rights Council decided in June, 2006, to extend for one year the mandates of the Sub-Commission. 103

During the 2006 session of the Sub-Commission, held from August 7-25, 2006, the Sub-Commission made recommendations to the Human Rights Council, and adopted a number of resolutions. The Sub-Commission adopted Resolution 2006/16 “The legal implications of the disappearance of States and other territories for environmental reasons, including the implications for the human rights of their residents, with particular reference to the rights of indigenous peoples,”104 and recommended to the Human Rights Council that it consider this resolution. Based on a paper submitted at the fifty-seventh session of the Sub-Commission on the human rights situation of indigenous peoples in states and territories threatened with extinction for environmental reasons,105 Resolution 2006/16 appoints a Special Rapporteur to prepare a comprehensive study on the legal implications of the disappearance of States and other territories for environmental reasons. The Resolution was later endorsed by the Human Rights Council.106

During the 2006 session, the Sub-Commission also considered the right to water. In Resolution 2006/10, the Sub-Commission acknowledged the human right to water, requested that states give this human right priority when considering international obligations, and resolved to submit the subject and accompanying report to the Human Rights Council for consideration.107

,http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?b=5&se=7&t=9, (then follow English language report hyperlink for “Realization of the right to drinking water and sanitation - Report of the Special Rapporteur, El Hadji Guissé”). 101 Id. at 5. 102 Id. at 9. 103 The Sub-Commission’s work is now considered under the mandate of the Human Rights Council. For ease of organizing this report, however, the Sub-Commission’s 2006 work will be considered under the Commission on Human Rights. 104 UN Human Rights Council, Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Rights, UN DOC A/HRC/2/2, at 54 (Aug. 24, 2006), available at http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?b=5&se=6&t=9. 105 UN Commission on Human Rights, Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Rights, UN DOC E/CN.4/Sub.2/2005/28. 106 UN Human Rights Council, UN DOC A/HRC/2/2, at 11, available at http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/2session/documents.htm#reports, click on above. 107 UN Human Rights Council, Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Rights, UN DOC A/HRC/2/2, at 41 (Aug. 24, 2006), available at http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?b=5&se=6&t=9.

16

d. Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples

The Commission on Human Rights received the 2005 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples.108 The report, primarily a study of educational needs among indigenous populations, also reflected growing international recognition of indigenous peoples’ environmental rights. It urged that special attention be paid to the relationship between indigenous peoples and the environment, and that participatory scientific research be promoted in this area (with special attention paid to vulnerable environments such as the Arctic, the forests of the far north, tropical forests and high mountain areas).109

The Special Rapporteur’s 2006 Report also made special note of the “implementation gap” between what legislation requires and what actually happens in legal, political, and administrative practice.110 The report explains the various ways that indigenous communities’ fundamental rights are violated and/or redressed. For example, the constitutions of Ecuador, Venezuela, and Guatemala now explicitly address rights of indigenous people to ancestral lands and/or to political participation and consultation, but legislatures have not passed the laws needed to execute these provisions.111 The report offers several more examples, including how, while Russia adopted new laws respecting the cultural rights of its indigenous populations, it “did not pay the same attention to the rights of indigenous peoples to land and natural resources.112 It also offers the counter-example of how a 2005 Chilean Supreme Court ruling affirmed an indigenous community’s rights to ancestral water, and rejected a private company’s claims to that water.113 In these and other instances, the Special Rapporteur focused attention on how crucial environmental rights are to the survival of indigenous peoples. The report highlights the importance not only of the right to access natural resources necessary for health and life, but also the right to participate in environmental decision-making surrounding allocation of resources crucial for their livelihood.

e. Working group on indigenous populations The Working Group on Indigenous Populations held its twenty-third session from July 18

to 23, 2005, subsequent to which it submitted its report entitled “Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Indigenous Peoples.”114 The report devoted considerable attention to concerns

108 UN Econ. & Soc. Council [ECOSOC], UN Comm’n on Human Rights, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, UN DOC E/CN.4/2005/88 (Jan. 6, 2005), available at http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/sdpage_e.aspx?b=1&se=59&t=9, (then go to page 13, follow English language report hyperlink for “Report of Rodolfo Stavenhagen, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people”). 109 Id. at 2; para. 92 at 21. 110 UN Econ. & Soc. Council [ECOSOC], UN Comm’n on Human Rights, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, UN DOC E/CN.4/2006/78 (Feb. 16, 2006), available at http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G06/108/67/PDF/G0610867.pdf?OpenElement. Para. 83 at 20. 111 Id. para. 26 , 27, & 32 at 8-10. 112 Id., para. 21 at 8. 113 Id., para. 20 at 7. 114 UN ECOSOC, UN Comm’n on Human Rights, Report of the Working Group on Indigenous Populations on its twenty-third session, UN DOC E/CN.4/Sub.2/2005/26 (Aug. 12, 2005), available at

17

raised in the expanded working paper on the human rights situation of indigenous peoples in states and other territories threatened with extinction for environmental reasons.115 The paper examined the situation of populations of sovereign states that faced the likelihood of the disappearance of the whole or a significant part of their surface area for environmental reasons. The report mentions the threat to indigenous peoples’ environmental rights due to climate change,116 as well as the fact that these environmental threats would nullify their rights to self-determination.117

The Working Group held its twenty-fourth session from July 31 to August 4, 2006. During that session, the Working Group focused on the principle theme of the “Utilization of indigenous peoples’ lands by non-indigenous authorities, groups or individuals for military purposes.”118 Some speakers noted specific environmental problems associated with military activities. For example, the Shoshone Indians of Nevada decried the U.S. military’s plans to detonate 700 tons of explosives near tribal traditional land as a test of a weapon that can penetrate solid rock. In addition, the Working Group was presented with a paper on “submerging and disappearing territories due to environmental reasons and the consequential effect on indigenous rights issues.”119

2. UN Commission on Sustainable Development

The thirteenth session of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) met from April 11-22, 2005. The Secretary General submitted two reports to the CSD upon which the proceedings of the thirteenth session were based.120 The Commission’s final report on the thirteenth session contained resolutions on issues including freshwater, sanitation, and human

http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?b=5&se=7&t=9, (then follow English language report hyperlink for “Report of the Working Group on Indigenous Populations on its twenty third session”). 115 UN Econ. & Soc. Council [ECOSOC], UN Comm’n on Human Rights, Expanded working paper by Françoise Hampson on the human rights situation of indigenous peoples in States and other territories threatened with extinction for environmental reasons, UN DOC E/CN.4/Sub.2/2005/28 (June 16, 2005), available at http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/subcom/57/aevdoc.htm, (then follow English language report hyperlink for “Expanded working paper by Ms. Hampson on the human rights situation of indigenous peoples in States and other territories threatened with extinction for environmental reasons”). 116 Id. para. 90 at 21. 117 Id. para. 91 at 21. 118 UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on Indigenous Populations, UN DOC A/HRC/Sub.1/58/22*. 119 Id. 120 UN Econ. & Soc. Council [ECOSOC], UN Comm’n on Sustainable Development, Freshwater Management: Policy Options and Possible Actions to Expedite Implementation – Report of the Secretary General, UN DOC. E/CN.17/2005/2 (Dec. 9, 2004), available at http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd/csd13/docs.htm, (then follow English language hyperlink for “Freshwater Management: Policy Options and Possible Actions to Expedite Implementation – Report of the Secretary General”); see also UN Econ. & Soc. Council [ECOSOC], UN Comm’n on Sustainable Development, Sanitation: Policy Options and Possible Actions to Expedite Implementation – Report of the Secretary General, UN DOC. E/CN.17/2005/3, (Dec. 10, 2004), available at http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/docs_sdissues_sanitation.htm.; see also UN Econ. & Soc. Council [ECOSOC], UN Comm’n on Sustainable Development, Human Settlements: Policy Options and Possible Actions to Expedite Implementation – Report of the Secretary General, UN DOC. E/CN.17/2005/4 (Dec. 9, 2004), available at http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/docs_csd13.htm.

18

habitation.121

Resolution 13/1 adopted at the 2005 session addressed policy options and practical measures to expedite implementation of policy goals in water, sanitation and human settlements.122 It begins with a reaffirmation of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Agenda 21, and the Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development, and goes on to emphasize that goals of the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation and the internationally agreed-upon development goals were complementary, that an integrated approach would be necessary to achieve them and that governments should take into account cross-cutting themes such as environmental issues.123 The Resolution calls upon states to take actions such as providing access to basic water services, implementing integrated management programs, improving access to and education about basic sanitation, increasing wastewater treatment, collection and reuse, expanding access to affordable land, housing and services, and promoting employment and enterprise.124

At its fourteenth annual meeting held May 1-12, 2006, the CSD continued to focus on significant issues pertaining to human and environmental rights. In particular, based on a Report of the Secretary General, the CSD focused on the themes of energy for sustainable development, industrial development, air pollution/atmosphere, and climate change.125 The report recognized the threat climate change posed to the viability and future of small island nations because of their geographic vulnerabilities.126 It also noted that without adequate investments in adaptation, climate change will increasingly impede efforts to overcome poverty and achieve sustainable development.127 The report urged the promotion of efficient technologies to decrease harmful emissions, thereby preventing climate change as well as air pollution-related health problems. 128

3. UN Commission for Social Development The Commission for Social Development is a functional commission of ECOSOC, and is

the key UN body in charge of follow-up and implementation of the Copenhagen Declaration and Programme of Action.129 The Copenhagen Declaration explicitly links environmental concerns with economic and social development, stressing the interdependence of the sustainable use of environmental resources and sustainable development.130 The forty-third session of the

121 UN Econ. & Soc. Council [ECOSOC], UN Comm’n on Sustainable Development, Report on the Thirteenth Session, UN DOC. E/CN.17/2005/12 (April 22, 2005), available at http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/docs_csd13.htm. 122 Id. at 9. 123 Id. at 11. 124 Id. at 12-19. 125 Report of the Secretary General, Integrated Review of the Thematic Cluster of Energy for Sustainable Development, Industrial Development, Air Pollution/atmosphere and Climate Change in Small Island Developing States, delivered to the Comm’n on Sustainable Development, UN Doc. E/CN.17/2006/3 (Feb. 20, 2006). 126 Id. at para. 9-12. 127 Id. 128 Id. at para. 94. 129 UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Social Policy and Development, Commission for Social Development, available at http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/csd/index.html, (last visited Feb. 27, 2006). 130 Copenhagen Declaration on Social Development, paras. 6, 8, available at http://www.visionoffice.com/socdev/wssdco-1.htm (last visited Feb. 27, 2006). Paragraph 6 states, “We are deeply convinced that economic development, social development and environmental protection are interdependent and

19

Commission was held from February 9-18, 2005, during which time the Commission conducted a ten-year review of the Copenhagen Declaration and Programme of Action.131

In the final report of its forty-third session, the Commission enumerated resolutions and decisions to be brought to the attention of the Economic and Social Council. 132 Resolution 43/1, entitled “Implementation of the Social Objectives of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development,” emphasized that economic development, social development and environmental protection are interdependent and mutually reinforcing components of sustainable development.133

The forty-fourth session of the Commission was held from February 8-17, 2006, during which time the Commission again adopted a number of resolutions and decisions.134 In this session the Commission addressed the New Partnership for Africa’s Development under the item “Social dimensions of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development.”135 At that time, they again emphasized that economic development, social development and environmental protection are interdependent and mutually reinforcing components of sustainable development.136

C. United Nations General Assembly

1. World Summit 2005 The sixtieth session of the United Nations General Assembly (GA), held from September

13-28, 2005, commenced with the World Summit 2005, during which member-states reviewed the progress made thus far on the MDGs adopted at the Millennium Summit in 2000.137

The final report of the Summit showcased the heightened significance accorded to environmental principles and rights.138 Nations reaffirmed that sustainable development in its economic, social, and environmental aspects constitutes a key element of the overarching

mutually reinforcing components of sustainable development, which is the framework for our efforts to achieve a higher quality of life for all people. Equitable social development that recognizes empowering the poor to utilize environmental resources sustainably is a necessary foundation for sustainable development. We also recognize that broad-based and sustained economic growth in the context of sustainable development is necessary to sustain social development and social justice.” 131 UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs – Division for Social Policy and Development, Commission for Social Development, 10-year review of the implementation of the Copenhagen Declaration and Programme of Action and the outcome of the 24th special session of the General Assembly, available at http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/csd/csocd2005.htm, (last visited Feb. 27, 2006). 132 See UN Econ. & Soc. Council [ECOSOC], UN Commission for Social Development, Report on the Forty-third Session, 17, UN DOC. E/CN.5/2005/7 (Feb. 18, 2005), available at http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/csd/csocd2005.htm, (then follow English language hyperlink). 133 Id. at 19. 134 UN Econ. & Soc. Council [ECOSOC], UN Commission for Social Development, Report on the Forty-fourth Session, UN DOC. E/CN.5/2006/6 (Feb. 8-17, 2006), available at http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/csd/csocd2006/resolutions/res06.htm. 135 See UN Econ. & Soc. Council [ECOSOC], UN Commission for Social Development, UN DOC. E/2006/26 (July 26, 2006), available at http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/csd/csocd2006/resolutions/2006-17%20NEPAD.pdf 136 Id. at 1. 137 See United Nations Organization, The 2005 World Summit, available at http://www.un.org/summit2005, (last visited Feb. 27, 2006). 138 See United Nations General Assembly, 2005 World Summit Outcome, UN DOC. A/60/L.1 (Sept. 20, 2005), available at http://www.un.org/summit2005/documents.html, (then follow “2005 World Summit Outcome, 15 September 2005, hyperlink).

20

framework of United Nations activities.139 Member states committed themselves to implementing Agenda 21 and to generally promoting sustainable production and consumption patterns.140 Governments resolved to act with urgency to combat the challenges of climate change and to promote clean energy, and to implement the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol.141 Further, nations committed themselves to a number of concrete goals ranging from the promotion of the UN Decade for Education for Sustainable Development and the “Water for Life” Decade, to implementation of environmental agreements such as the Convention to Combat Desertification, the Convention on Biodiversity and the Cartagena Protocol, and the Hyogo Declaration and Hyogo Framework for Action.142 In recognition of the connection between human rights and environmental issues addressed by the United Nations, the Secretariat pledged to improve “system-wide coherence” within its institutional structure.143

2. 60th Session of the General Assembly

a. Sustainable Development Under this agenda item, the report of the Secretary General entitled “Water for Life:

International Decade for Action 2005 – 2015” was tabled before the GA.144 The report began by recalling the commitment of the world’s governments to reduce by half the population of the world without access to safe drinking water by the year 2015.145 The report went on to elaborate on the vast network of UN programs and activities directed at achieving the internationally agreed goals.146 The report also addressed regional initiatives, support to country programs, communications and educational outreach. The allocation of this vast amount of resources to the “water for life” program is indicative of the importance and recognition of water-based entitlements amongst the international community.

b. Protection of Climate for Present and Future Generations

Under this agenda item, the GA considered a report on the Implementation of the United Nations’ Environmental Conventions, prepared by the secretariats of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).147 The report noted that the 139 Id. para. 10 at 2. 140 Id. para. 48 at 12, para. 49 at 12. 141 Id. para. 51 at 13. 142 Id. para. 56 (a) – 56 (o) at 13 – 16. 143 Id. at 39. 144 United Nations General Assembly, Actions taken in organizing the activities of the International Decade for Action, Water for Life 2005 – 2015: Report of the Secretary-General, UN DOC. A/60/158 (July 25, 2005), available at http://unbisnet.un.org:8080/ipac20/ipac.jsp?&menu=search&aspect=power&npp=50&ipp=20&spp=20&profile=bibga&index=.AT&term=Sustainable+development&matchopt=2%7C0&oper=and&aspect=power&index=.UD&term=a60*&sort=3100035&x=&y=8#focus, (Item 4, then follow English language hyperlink). 145 Id. para. 4 at 3. 146 See id. at 5-9. 147 United Nations General Assembly, Implementation of United Nations Environmental Conventions, UN DOC. A/60/171 (July 29, 2005), available at http://unbisnet.un.org:8080/ipac20/ipac.jsp?&menu=search&aspect=power&npp=50&ipp=20&spp=20&profile=bib

21

FCCC has “reached near-universality” with 189 parties, and that the Kyoto Protocol to the Convention, which came into effect in February 2005, has also received recognition from its 172 ratifying states.148 The report also reviewed progress made at the tenth conference of parties to the FCCC in Buenos Aires in December 2004.149

The report of the executive secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity summarized the contents of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005 and highlighted the Assessment’s core message that loss of biodiversity and decline of ecosystem services are of concern for human well-being.150 The report recalled steps initiated by the UN Secretary General to carry out a comprehensive study of the relationship between ecosystems and human well-being, particularly the biodiversity synthesis report which underlined the “importance of biological diversity in providing concrete services upon which human life depends.”151 In concluding the report, the GA took note of the important links between biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and human wellbeing.152

c. Sustainable Development in Mountain Regions The report of the Secretary General on Sustainable Mountain Development noted that the

International Year of Mountains in 2002 raised awareness of the “importance of mountains to life,”153 and recognized challenges to preserving fragile mountain ecosystems, which “provide a direct life-support base for about 12 per cent of the world population, as well as essential goods and services to more than half of humankind.”154 The report also reviewed national and regional action aimed at addressing these challenges, including regional agreements and conventions.

d. New and Renewable Sources of Energy The GA considered the report of the Secretary General entitled “Promotion of New and

Renewable Sources of Energy, including the Culmination of the World Solar Programme 1996 – 2005.”155 Among other things, the report noted that one of the “growing concerns of the

ga&index=.AT&term=Protection+of+global+climate+for+present+and+future+generations+of+mankind&matchopt=2%7C0&oper=and&aspect=power&index=.UD&term=a60*&sort=3100035&x=&y=8#focus. 148 Id. at 3. 149 Id. at 3–7. 150 Id. at 19; see also Mark Van Putten, Toward a New Environmental Insurgency, BIOSCIENCE, Volume 55, Number 9, 789-794, (September 2005), available at http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/aibs/bio/2005/00000055/00000009/art00011;jses. 151 Implementation of United Nations Environmental Conventions, supra note 147 at 21. 152 Id. 153 See United Nations General Assembly, Sustainable Mountain Development, para. 2 at 2, para. 59 at 13, UN DOC. A/60/309 (Sept. 29, 2005), available at http://unbisnet.un.org:8080/ipac20/ipac.jsp?&menu=search&aspect=power&npp=50&ipp=20&spp=20&profile=bibga&index=.AT&term=Sustainable+development+in+mountain+regions&matchopt=2%7C0&oper=and&aspect=power&index=.UD&term=a60*&sort=3100035&x=&y=8#focus. 154 Id. para. 5 at 9. 155 United Nations General Assembly, Promotion of New and Renewable Sources of Energy, including the Culmination of the World Solar Programme 1996 – 2005: Report of the Secretary General, UN DOC. A/60/154 (July 25, 2005), available at http://unbisnet.un.org:8080/ipac20/ipac.jsp?&menu=search&aspect=power&npp=50&ipp=20&spp=20&profile=bibga&index=.AT&term=Promotion+of+new+and+renewable+sources+of+energy+%2C+including+the+implementation+of+the+World+Solar+Programme+1996-

22

international community” is the persistent poverty that is seriously impeding socio-economic development.156 It went on to state that the achievement of the internationally agreed upon goal of halving the proportion of the world’s population living in poverty will depend on providing access to modern energy services and explicitly recognized climate change, air pollution and broad-based natural resource depletion as significant concerns.157

3. 61st Session of the General Assembly

a. 2010 Named International Year of Biodiversity During its sixty-first session, the GA adopted Resolution 61/203 naming 2010 the International Year of Biodiversity,158 and Resolution 61/204, noting progress on and reaffirming commitment to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).159 In recognizing the CBD and naming 2010 the International Year of Biodiversity, the GA encouraged nations and regions to focus efforts on reducing the loss of biodiversity. In Resolution 61/203, “the social, economic, environmental and cultural implications of the loss of biodiversity, including negative impacts on the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals,”160 were noted.

b. Protection of Global Climate

Also during this session, the GA adopted a text entitled “Protection of global climate for present and future generations of mankind.”161 By that text, the Assembly urged States that had not yet done so to join those that had already ratified the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

c. Environmental Norms in Disarmament

The GA adopted Resolution 61/63, on the “Observance of environmental norms in the drafting and implementation of agreements on disarmament and arms control.”162 In it they called upon states to adopt measures to ensure disarmament occurred, “without detriment to the environment or to its effective contribution to attaining sustainable development,”163 thereby recognizing the relationship between the environment and the human right to development.

2005&matchopt=2%7C0&oper=and&aspect=power&index=.UD&term=a60*&sort=3100035&x=&y=8#focus, (item 1, then follow English language hyperlink). 156 Id. para. 5 at 3. 157 See id. at 4. 158 United Nations General Assembly, International Year of Biodiversiy: 2010, UN DOC. A/RES/61/203 (December 20, 2006), available at http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/resguide/r61.htm. 159 United Nations General Assembly, Convention on Biological Diversity, UN DOC. A/RES/61/204 (December 20, 2006), available at http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/resguide/r61.htm. 160 See supra note 158 at 2. 161 United Nations General Assembly, Protection of global climate for present and future generations of mankind, UN DOC. A/RES/61/201 (December 20, 2006), available at http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/resguide/r61.htm. 162 United Nations General Assembly, Observance of environmental norms in the drafting and implementation of agreements on disarmament and arms control, UN DOC. A/RES/61/63 (December 6, 2006), available at http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/resguide/r61.htm. 163 Id. at 1.

23

4. UN Human Rights Council

In April 2006, the Human Rights Council (HRC) was created by GA Resolution 60/251.164 The HRC was assigned to assume the duties of the Commission on Human Rights and, continuing to report to the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, to review and improve procedures and complaints mechanisms for violations of human rights. HRC membership consists of 47 states elected by GA member nations.165 Elections for members were held on May 9, 2006.166 The Council convened three times during 2006, and adopted a number of resolutions and decisions at each of the three sessions.

a. Declaration A/HRC/1/L.3

At the first session of the Human Rights Council, the Council adopted the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.167 Originally proposed in 1994, the declaration represents the genesis of international protection of the rights of indigenous peoples. It expresses that indigenous peoples have the right to fundamental freedoms and that these rights are held both collectively and individually. The declaration specifically recognizes the historic dispossession of indigenous lands and reaffirms the right of indigenous peoples to control development of their resources.168

b. Decision 2/104: Human rights and access to water

At its second session, the Human Rights Council adopted Decision 2/104, requesting that the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights conduct a study on human rights obligations related to equitable access to safe drinking water and sanitation.169 The adoption of the decision by the Council reaffirms the need for further understanding of the human right to water.

5. Other United Nations General Assembly Events

a. Millennium Developments Goals Report In May 2005, the United Nations released its report on the MDGs.170 In the report, the

Secretary General noted that the goals (including goal seven “Ensuring Environmental Sustainability”) enjoy unprecedented political support in developing and developed countries, 164 U.N General Assembly, Human Rights Council, 60/251, U.N Doc. A/RES/60/251 (April 3, 2006), available at: http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/A.RES.60.251_En.pdf. 165 Id. 166 UN General Assembly, Human Rights Council, available at http://www.un.org/ga/60/elect/hrc/, last accessed March 1, 2007. 167 UN Human Rights Council, Implementation Of General Assembly Resolution 60/251 Of 15 March 2006 Entitled “Human Rights Council,” UN Doc. A/HRC/1/L.3 (June 23, 2006), available at http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/sdpage_e.aspx?b=10&se=2&t=4. 168 Chairperson-Rapporteur of the working group of the Commission on Human Rights, Draft United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Report of the Working Group of the Commission of Human Rights Delivered at the 11th Session, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2006/79 (Mar. 22, 2006). 169 UN Human Rights Council, Human rights and access to water, A/HRC/2/104 (Nov. 27, 2006), available at: http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/E/HRC/decisions/A-HRC-DEC-2-104.doc 170 United Nations General Assembly, The Millennium Development Goals Report, available at http://unstats.un.org/unsd/mi/pdf/MDG%20Book.pdf, (last visited Feb. 27, 2006).

24

with NGOs and with development institutions.171 The report highlights areas of progress in the achievement of the goals as well as setbacks suffered in the key areas. This report served as a primary resource paper for the World Summit 2005.

b. Report of the Secretary General: “In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All”

On March 21, 2005, during the fifty-ninth session of the GA, the Secretary General released a report entitled “In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All.”172 The report was a five-year assessment of progress made in the implementation of the Millennium Declaration, and elaborated on strategies to ensure achievement of the goals by the targeted deadline. The report stated that human beings “fundamentally” depend on natural systems and resources for their existence and development.173 It also addressed important environmental themes such as desertification,174 biodiversity,175 climate change,176 infectious diseases,177 natural disasters178 and others. The report was particularly significant because it wove issues of environment, development, and social empowerment together with the common thread of human rights discourse, explicitly stating that in addition to being imperative in its own right, each issue also reinforces and is dependent on the others.179

In his address to the GA on the occasion of the report’s release, the Secretary General stressed that development must be sustainable, and that “efforts ... will be in vain if environmental degradation and natural resource depletion continue unabated.”180 He also stated that there must be reforms in the United Nations secretariat to address environmental issues.181

6. UN General Assembly Bodies

a. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) The twenty-third session of the Governing Council and the Global Ministerial

Environmental Forum of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) took place February 21-25, 2005. The session report was entitled, “President’s Summary of the Discussions by Ministers and Heads of Delegations at the twenty-third session of the Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environmental Forum of the United Nations Environment Programme: Contribution to the Summit Meeting of the General Assembly on the

171 Id. at 3. 172 United Nations General Assembly, In Larger freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All, UN DOC. A/59/2005 (March 21, 2005), available at http://www.un.org/largerfreedom/contents.htm. 173 Id. para. 57 at 19. 174 Id. para. 58 at 19. 175 Id. para. 59 at 19. 176 Id. paras. 60-61 at 19. 177 Id. paras. 63-64 at 20. 178 Id. paras. 58-66 at 21. 179 See id. para. 1 at 3, para. 6 at 4, paras. 14, 16 at 5, para. 19 at 6, para. 27 at 8. 180 Id. para. 57 at 19. 181 See id. at 14, 48.

25

Implementation of the Millennium Declaration.”182 The session report stressed the implementation of goals 1, 3 and 7 of the MDG, and stated that heightened attention needed to be given to the environmental underpinnings of the MDGs in future implementation.183 The report recommended that environmental sustainability considerations be incorporated into national poverty-reduction programs, thereby tying them more closely to human rights issues.184 In addition, it stressed the need for water conservation and environmentally sustainable water management.185 Further, the report highlighted a human-rights nexus by noting that millions die every year from water-borne diseases, accounting for a very high proportion of illnesses in some countries, and also that environmentally unsustainable water use has a disproportionately high impact on women and children.186

In June 2005, UNEP also released a report entitled “One Planet Many People: An Atlas of our Changing Environment.”187 The report highlighted the effects of anthropogenic change on climate, land, water, and human settlements.188

From February 7-9, 2006, the UNEP Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum held its Ninth Special Session. Much of the meeting was devoted to a discussion of energy and the environment and tourism and the environment,189 implicitly and explicitly noting the links between the well-being of the environment and human health, and between the environment and the ability of nations to develop.

In addition, UNEP publications from 2006, including the Global Environment Outlook (GEO) Yearbook 2006, were discussed. The GEO Yearbook 2006 focused on energy and air pollution, and highlighted three key areas: indoor air pollution resulting from the use of solid fuels, which represented the tenth most serious health risk in the world; urban air pollution, which was responsible for 800,000 premature deaths every year; and long-range air pollution.190 The report stressed the need to increase energy efficiency without compromising the energy needs of the poor, and noted the increasing availability and competitiveness of sustainable and environmentally friendly energy sources and clean technologies.191

182 United Nations Environment Programme, President’s Summary of twenty-third session of Governing Council / Global Ministerial Environmental Forum, UN DOC. UNEP/GC.23/L.3/Rev.1 (Feb. 24, 2005), available at http://www.unep.org/gc/gc23/documents/PresidentSummary.pdf. 183 Id. paragraph 4 at 2. 184 Id. at 3. 185 Id. at 5. 186 Id. at 5. 187 United Nations Environment Programme, One Planet, Many People: An Atlas of Our Changing Environment, available at http://www.na.unep.net/OnePlanetManyPeople/index.php, (last visited Feb. 27, 2006). 188 Press Release, United Nations Environment Programme, “One Planet, Many People” Atlas Launched to Mark World Environment Day 2005, http://www.na.unep.net/OnePlanetManyPeople/Atlas_Pressrelease.php (last visited Feb. 27, 2006). 189 United Nations Environment Programme, Proceedings of the Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum at its ninth special session, UN DOC UNEP/GCSS.IX/11, (March 16, 2006), Annex III Summary report of the President of the discussions by ministers and heads of delegation at the ninth special session of the Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum of the United Nations Environment Programme, available at http://www.unep.org/GC/GCSS-IX/Documents/K0650880-gcssix-proceedings-final.pdf. 190 United Nations Environment Programme, Global Environment Outlook Yearbook 2006, available at http://www.unep.org/geo/yearbook/yb2006/PDF/Complete_pdf_GYB_2006.pdf. 191 Id.

26

In further discussion during the Special Session about the UNEP reports released in 2006, many noted that the environmental problems identified impeded attainment of the Millennium Development Goals and that conservation of natural resources was key to achieving all the MGDs.192

Finally, in June 2006, UNEP released a report entitled "Marine and Coastal Ecosystems & Human Well-being: Synthesis."193 The report synthesizes findings from the reports of the four Millennium Ecosystems Assessments (MA) Working Groups concerning marine and coastal ecosystems, recognizing the impacts that the loss of marine and coastal systems has on human well-being.194

b. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) In 2005, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) released a publication

entitled “The Sustainable Difference: Energy and Environment to Achieve the MDGs.” 195 The publication centered its discussion around environmental links to development. It highlighted the important role that energy and ecosystem services play in providing the poor with the means to improve their livelihoods, as well as protecting nature’s capacity to provide invaluable ecosystem services upon which economic growth depends.196

The 2006 annual report by UNDP, entitled “Global Partnership for Development,”197 reaffirmed the right to development, including achieving the MDGs, the importance of human development, and the need for “equitable growth and sustainability.”198 The report also emphasized how inadequate and unequal management of natural resources and the environment is a significant obstacle to achieving sustainable development.199 According to the report the poor are especially vulnerable because “when natural resources are depleted, when pollution threatens the well-being of a country’s population, the most vulnerable tend to be among the hardest hit.”200 The report underscored the importance of creating and reinforcing domestic laws in order to protect human and environmental health.201

The UNDP’s 2006 human development report, entitled “Beyond scarcity: Power, poverty, and the global water crisis,”202 identifies the collapse of water-based ecological systems, declining river flows, and large-scale groundwater depletion as the symptoms of a worldwide

192 Id. 193 United Nations Environment Program, Marine and Coastal Ecosystems and Human Well-Being, (2006), available at http://www.unep.org/dewa/assessments/EcoSystems/water/Marine_Coastal_Ecosystems.pdf, (last visited Aug. 23, 2006). 194 Id. 195 United Nations Development Programme, Sustainable Difference: Energy and Environment to Achieve the MDGs, available at http://www.undp.org/energyandenvironment/sustainabledifference, (last visited Feb. 27, 2006). 196 United Nations Development Programme, Energy and Environment for Sustainable Development, available at http://www.undp.org/energyandenvironment, (last visited Feb. 27, 2006). 197 United Nations Development Program, 2006 Annual Report: Global Partnership for Development (2006), available at http://www.undp.org/publications/annualreport2006/english-report.pdf. 198 Id. at 4. 199 Id. at 16. 200 Id. 201 Id. at 27. 202 United Nations Development Program, 2006 Human Development Report: Beyond scarcity: Power, poverty and the global water crisis, (2006) available at http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/pdfs/report/HDR06-complete.pdf.

27

competition for water. The report notes that the world’s poor are at the losing end of a global power struggle over the resource.

c. United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT)

The twentieth session of the Governing Council of the United Nations Human Settlements Programme met April 4-8, 2005 in Nairobi.203 The Governing Council’s report – submitted to the Sixtieth Session of the United Nations General Assembly – included the resolution on “Housing as a component of the right to adequate standard of living,” which urged governments to encourage the realization of this right through the implementation of appropriate laws and policies.204 Other resolutions adopted by the Governing Council include those that addressed preservation and sustainable development of oases, access to basic services, best practices, good policies and enabling legislation in support of sustainable urbanization, sustainable development of arctic cities, and other diverse themes.205

UN-HABITAT’s Annual Report 2005 contained discussions on securing people’s access to land and housing, and improving the urban environment, among others.206 The report stressed upgrading the urban environment but also emphasized carrying out environmental impact assessments and employing best practices to ensure sustainability.207 Specifically, the report noted that environmental degradation threatens economic efficiency, social equity and sustainability.208 In 2006, UN-HABITAT issued a number of publications, including “Meeting Development Goals in Small Urban Centers – Water and Sanitation in the World’s Cities 2006.” This report draws the link between sustainable development and access to clean water in urban and semi-urban environments. It emphasizes that attaining the MDGs will depend on strengthening the prospects of local economic development and improving the living and working conditions of small towns and cities which, in turn, depend on access to clean water and improved sanitation.

d. World Heritage Committee The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) convened the twenty-ninth session of the World Heritage Committee July 10-17, 2005.209 At the 203 United Nations Human Settlements Programme, Twentieth Session of UN-Habitat Governing Council, available at http://www.unhabitat.org/gc/gc20/default.asp, (last visited Feb. 27, 2006). 204 United Nations General Assembly, Report of the Governing Council of the United Nations Human Settlement Programme, Resolution 20/13 at 36, UN DOC. A/60/8 (April 4-8, 2005), available at http://www.unhabitat.org/gc/gc20/documents/GC-20%20Rpt.%20(A_60_8%20%20Supp.%208)%20e.doc, or http://www.unhabitat.org/gc/gc20/post-session_documents.asp. 205 Id., Resolution 20/3 at 19, Resolution 20/5 at 21, Resolution 20/6 at 23, and Resolution 20/8 at 28. 206 United Nations Human Settlement Programme, Responding to the Challenges of an Urbanizing World – UN HABITAT Annual Report 2005, available at http://www.unhabitat.org/documents/UN-HABITAT_AR_2005.pdf, (last visited Feb. 27, 2006). 207 See id. at 8, 9, 11, 15, 20. 208 Id at 21. 209 UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO], Twenty-ninth session of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee, available at http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID=27574&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html, (last visited Feb. 27, 2006).

28

session, the Committee deliberated on the impact of climate change on world heritage sites and the possible obligations of nation-states to reduce global warming, in a bid to reduce the threat to the protected sites. It decided to set up a task force to investigate the effects of climate change on vulnerable heritage sites and, by implication, the effects of climate change on the cultural rights of present and future generations.210

The working group met between March 16 and 17, 2006 to develop a strategy for addressing the effects of climate change on heritage sites.211 In the working group’s report, it recognized climate change as one of the most significant challenges facing society and the environment today, and developed a strategy to first prevent, then implement corrective actions to conserve heritage sites, and thus the cultural rights of present and future generations, from the adverse effects of climate change.212

D. Other International Bodies

1. The World Bank

a. Reports and Publications

The theme of the World Bank’s 2006 World Development Report, an Annual Publication of the World Bank, was “Equity and Development.”213 The report mentioned that taking account of environmental externalities is intrinsic to national welfare.214 It also observed that some infrastructure and resettlement projects in certain countries have had adverse environmental consequences.215 In the context of equitable trade relations, the report noted with approval the role of groups trying to establish environmental standards.216 Similarly, in the context of equitable access to information, the report made reference to the Århus Convention of 1998, thereby highlighting the rights of access to information, public participation in decision-making, and access to justice in environmental matters, embodied in this convention.217

Another World Bank annual publication, the World Development Indicators 2005, provided a comprehensive view of the development process, keeping environmental factors within its ambit. Its opening chapter focused on the Millennium Development Goals, while the other five main sections addressed the contribution of a wide range of factors that are central to meaningful development, including environmental sustainability and the global links that influence the external environment for development.218 The report provided quick reference to

210 See Richard Black, UN investigates Everest threat, BBC NEWS, July 14, 2005, available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4682437.stm. 211 United Nations Educational, Scientific And Cultural Organization , Issues related to the state of conservation of World Heritage properties: the impacts of Climate Change on World Heritage properties, UN DOC WHC-06/30.COM/7.1 (June 26, 2006), available at http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-07.1e.pdf. 212 Id. 213 The World Bank, World Development Report 2006: Equity and Development, (Sept. 2006), available at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDR2007/Resources/1489782-1158107976655/overview.pdf. 214 Id. at 205. 215 Id. at 223. 216 Id. at 213. 217 Id. at 217. 218 The World Bank, World Development Indicators 2005, available at http://devdata.worldbank.org/wdi2005/Cover.htm, (last visited Feb. 27, 2006).

29

the latest available environmental data for World Bank member countries on environmental indicators such as urban housing, rural environment and land use, deforestation and biodiversity, freshwater, water pollution, energy production and use, energy efficiency and emissions, traffic congestion and air pollution, among others.219 It also analyzed trends and future prospects for many of these issues. The attention given to environmental conditions by the World Development Indicators illustrates the link between environmental quality and human development.

In the World Bank’s World Development Indicators 2006, environmental factors were once again an underlying theme.220 The opening chapter of the publication again focused on the MDGs, with reference to wise resource use as a necessary component of sustainable development.221 Further chapters reiterated the importance of wise resource use for sustained development, and one chapter focused specifically on the importance of a healthy environment for reducing poverty, as so many of the world’s developing countries depend on agriculture for subsistence. The report thus recognized that an unhealthy environment has disproportionate impacts on poor and developing groups.222

b. World Bank Inspection Panel The World Bank Inspection Panel was established in 1993 with the primary purpose of

addressing the concerns of people who may be affected by World Bank projects and ensuring that the Bank adheres to its operational policies and procedures in each of its projects.223 In response to a complaint, the Panel may recommend to the World Bank Board of Executive Directors that the Panel investigate a project and management’s compliance with Bank policy and procedures. The Panel then reports to the Board on its findings, and the Board decides what actions the Bank should take in response to those findings.224

i. Cartagena Water Supply, Sewerage and Environmental Management Project (Colombia)225

In June 2005 the Inspection Panel released its Investigation Report concerning Colombia’s Cartagena Water Supply, Sewerage and Environmental Management Project.226 In July 2006, the Project Management submitted its Management Report and Recommendations in response to the Panel’s report.227 The original Request for Inspection was submitted on April 20, 219 See id. at Ch. 3, Environment, (go to “Table of Contents” and then to Ch. 3, “Environment”). 220 The World Bank, World Development Indicators 2006, available at http://devdata.worldbank.org/wdi2006/contents/cover.htm, (last visited March 9, 2007). 221 Id. at Section 1.1.7 222 Id. at Section 3.1 223 The World Bank Inspection Panel, About Us, available at http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTINSPECTIONPANEL/0,,menuPK:64129249~pagePK:64132081~piPK:64132052~theSitePK:380794,00.html, (last visited Feb. 27, 2006). 224 See id. (follow “panel process” hyperlink). 225 This was included in the issue paper for the Commission’s 61st Session. 226 See The World Bank Inspection Panel, Investigation Report Colombia: Cartagena Water Supply, Sewerage and Environmental Management Project, Report No. 32034-CO (June 24, 2005), available at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTINSPECTIONPANEL/Resources/PanelInvestigationReportFinal.pdf. 227 See The World Bank Inspection Panel, Management Report and Recommendation Colombia: Cartagena Water Supply, Sewerage and Environmental Management Project, Report No. INSP/R2005-0003, (July 29, 2005), available at

30

2004 by the Corporación Cartagena Honesta (CCH), a local non-governmental organization, on its own behalf and on behalf of local residents. The request alleged that the World Bank violated its own policies and procedures in the design, appraisal and implementation of the Project, challenging the feasibility and environmental impact studies conducted.228 The Requesters also alleged that the violations have caused and will continue to cause harm to the communities living in areas north of the city of Cartagena and to human health and the environment through pollution of the marine environment; that it will cause economic harm to the local community; and that the Bank violated its policy on Indigenous Peoples by failing to identify the affected communities.229 The Panel registered the Request on April 22, 2004, and notified the World Bank Board of Executive Directors (“the Board”) and the President of its receipt.230 The Panel determined that the Request met the eligibility criteria and recommended that an investigation be conducted. On July 13, 2004, the World Bank’s Board of Executive Directors approved the Panel’s recommendation to conduct an investigation.231

The Inspection Panel’s 2005 report found that in some instances environmental, social and economic factors had not been adequately assessed in pre-project discussions or studies.232 The Panel expressed concern that environmental alternatives in the original feasibility study were not systematically compared, that the Feasibility Study and the Environmental Assessment did not address the possible long term environmental and health effects on the coastal and marine environment, and that necessary measures to assess the environmental impact of the project were not taken in every case. 233 The Panel also found inadequate social evaluation and mitigation proposals of potential impacts on the local population’s lives and livelihoods, and determined that the Social Impact Assessment of the Bank was unsatisfactory in its entirety.234 Though the Inspection Panel found no instances of technical non-compliance with the Bank’s indigenous peoples policies, it noted that “[s]ince the [local] Afro-Colombian [community] could reasonably have been regarded as indigenous peoples within the indigenous peoples policy…the Bank would have been well advised to require an Indigenous Peoples Development Plan (IPDP) or a similar document identifying impacts of the Project on these people and providing mitigation measures for risks and potential harm, particularly in light of the inadequacies of the Social Impact Assessment.”235

In November, 2005 the World Bank Board discussed the findings of the Inspection Panel. During the discussion, it was noted that “the appropriate disposal of wastewater is essential for improving the life for all residents of Cartagena.”236

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTINSPECTIONPANEL/Resources/ManagementReportandRecommendations.pdf. 228 Id. at x. 229 Id. 230 Id. at ix. 231 Id. 232 Id. at ix – xxvii. 233 Id. at ix. 234 Id. at xvii. 235 Id. at xviii. 236 The World Bank Inspection Panel, Press Release: World Bank Board Discusses Inspection Panel’s Investigation Of The Colombia-Cartagena Water Supply, Sewerage And Environmental Management Project, (Nov. 8, 2005), available at http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTINSPECTIONPANEL/0,,contentMDK:20

31

ii. National Drainage Program Project (Pakistan)237

In 2005, the Inspection Panel recommended an investigation into a 2004 Request for Inspection related to the National Drainage Program (NDP) Project in Pakistan that was submitted by seven individuals on their own behalf and on behalf of others who live in the area known as district Badin, Sindh Pakistan in the Indus River Basin.238 According to the Request, more than 50 villages in the district will suffer the permanent threat of flooding from the disposal of upstream saline effluents if the existing Left Bank Outfall Drain (LBOD) system is further expanded under the project. The Requesters allege that the project did not take into consideration the possible displacement of people that will result when the drainage system overflows during monsoon rainy seasons. They further claim that the expansion of drains under the NDP will entail forceful acquisition of land that would ruin their livelihoods. Further, the Requesters claim that the NDP will cause the destruction of two Dhands (coastal wetlands) that are protected by the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance. The Requesters also claim that the local communities, and especially the affected people of the coastal belt, have not been kept adequately informed as to project plans and environmental assessments.

The Panel released the Investigation Report in July, 2006,239 and in September 2006, Project Management issued its Management Report and Recommendations.240 In the Investigation Report, the Panel found the environmental assessment of the project to be inadequate.241 Specifically, the investigation found that the project design, appraisal, and supervision process did not assess downstream effects.242 The Panel also found that the project “paid little attention to impacts on, or means to rehabilitate, the dhands as a habitat and ecosystem,” and that “[m]anagement did not initiate a process to determine whether the NDP Project would affect any group of people that would qualify as Indigenous Peoples.” 243 The Panel was not able to find any evidence to substantiate the claim of the Requesters that the Project has affected cultural property, but recognized that by failing to initiate a process to determine whether this was the case, the project was not in compliance with bank policies. Importantly, the Panel also found that the damages suffered by people in the project-affected areas have not, to a large degree, been redressed, and that many of the same conditions that have adversely affected them are still in place.244

718336~menuPK:64129469~pagePK:64129751~piPK:64128378~theSitePK:380794,00.html 237 This was included in the issue paper for the Commission’s 61st Session. 238 The World Bank Inspection Panel, Report and Recommendation on Request for Inspection, Pakistan: National Drainage Program Project (Credit No. 2999-PAK), available at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTINSPECTIONPANEL/Resources/EligibilityReport.pdf. 239 See The World Bank Inspection Panel, Investigation Report: Pakistan: National Drainage Program Project, Report No. 36382-K (July 6, 2006), available at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTINSPECTIONPANEL/Resources/PKFinalInvestigationReport.pdf. 240 See The World Bank Inspection Panel, Management Report & Recommendation in Response to the Investigation Panel Report: Pakistan: National Drainage Program Project, Credit No. 2999-PK (Sept 18, 2006), available at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTINSPECTIONPANEL/Resources/MgmntRprt&RecommendatiominRspnsetoPanelInvestigationRprt.pdf. 241 Id. at 10. 242 Supra note 239 at xxxvi. 243 Supra note 240 at 10. 244 Id.

32

iii. Forest Concession Management and Control Pilot Project (Cambodia)

In 2005, the Board approved an investigation into the Forest Concession Management and Control Pilot Project (FCMCPP) in Cambodia.245 The Panel’s report was prepared in response to a request for inspection it received on January 28, 2005, submitted by the Forum of Cambodia on its behalf and that of local communities living in affected districts. The communities claimed that by assisting the concessionaires in producing forest management plans and environmental and social assessments, the Bank used loan money to benefit logging companies with track records of human rights abuses. Furthermore, the money financed illegal logging of resin trees, thus impairing one of the main sources of livelihood for forest-dependent communities.246 The Requesters also claimed that in designing the project, the Bank did not adequately consider environmental and social impacts, that the Bank did not consult with indigenous groups, and did not consider cultural property. 247 Requesters allege that the concessionaires’ activities are a “direct threat” to those whose livelihoods depend on tapping resin.

In its March, 2006 Investigation Report, the Inspection Panel found that in the project’s focus on concessions, it ignored the potential of forests to reduce poverty, and that the Bank sacrificed environmental and social aspects of development to prioritize other aspects of concession reform.248 The Panel also found that the Bank did not conduct the required, full Environmental Assessment, nor did the Bank investigate the serious negative consequences that illegal logging of resin trees has had on the local people, including indigenous groups. The Panel found that the Bank should have undertaken early consultation with these groups to identify threats to livelihoods and important cultural properties. 249 In sum, the Panel concluded that the project’s implementation process was deficient in almost all regards.250

The project had closed by the time the Inspection Panel issued its final report.251 However, the Bank’s Management’s Action Plan, prepared in response to the Panel’s report, highlighted the need to ensure that communities have continued access to forest resources upon which they depend for their health and livelihoods.252 The plan stressed that local communities have the right to early and sustained participation in designing projects to manage resources upon which they depend, and that the Bank must work harder to accommodate that right.253

245 See Press Release, The World Bank Inspection Panel, The World Bank Approves Investigation – Cambodia: Forest Concession Management and Control Pilot Project (April 25, 2005), http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTINSPECTIONPANEL/0,,contentMDK:20474031~menuPK:64129469~pagePK:64129751~piPK:64128378~theSitePK:380794,00.html. 246 The World Bank Inspection Panel, Investigation Report Cambodia: Forest Concession Management and Control Pilot Project, Report No. 35556, (March 30, 2006), available at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTINSPECTIONPANEL/Resources/CAMBODIAFINAL.pdf 247 Id. at x. 248 Id. at xvi and xxxiii. 249 Id. 250 Id. 251 See The World Bank, News Release, Improving management of forests is critical to better livelihoods, economic growth in Cambodia (June 29, 2006), available at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTINSPECTIONPANEL/Resources/cambodiapressrelease.pdf. 252 Id. 253 Id.

33

iv. Mumbai Urban Transport Project (India)

In 2005, the Inspection Panel approved an investigation into the Mumbai Urban Transport Project.254 The request was brought by a group of NGOs representing shopkeepers and residents among the estimated 120,000 people to be resettled as a result of new rail and road construction. The Requesters claimed that resettlement would destroy their livelihoods. Furthermore, they alleged that the resettlement site was located near the municipal dump, and was one of the most polluted sites in Mumbai; that thousands of trees had been cut illegally, and not replanted; and, finally, that they were not adequately consulted during the process, and that the Bank had withheld important information from them.255

The Panel’s inspection confirmed that the World Bank had violated several of its own policies in implementing the project. The Bank had failed to help provide for the livelihoods of the people that would be displaced,256 had failed to consult with the affected populations when choosing the resettlement site, and had failed to establish an effective grievance procedure.257 Furthermore, “[e]nvironmental and social support services at the sites were neither ready nor adequate when people were resettled, and many lacked adequate access to water and sewage.”258

The Panel also acknowledged flaws in the Bank’s environmental assessment process, including a failure to compare the environmental attributes of the resettlement site with the site where the Requesters currently lived and worked.259 The Panel noted that no consideration was given to the fact that the resettlement was near the city dump, confirming that the resettlement area’s environmental conditions are “not good, especially for solid waste management and sanitation.260 The Panel also acknowledged the inadequate water supply for the resettled citizens, and highlighted the Bank’s failure to conduct adequate baseline surveys.261 Finally, the inspection Panel noted that the Bank’s decision to entrust most resettlement activities to NGOs that lacked adequate resources to perform their tasks was inappropriate.262

As a result, the Bank suspended payments to the project, pending completion of a ten-point plan to remedy violations. On June 29, 2006, satisfied that procedures had been set up to ameliorate the Bank’s violations, the Bank reinstated payments.263

v. Congo: Transitional Support for Economic Recovery Credit and Emergency Economic and Social Reunification Support Project

On February 28, 2006, the Inspection Panel approved an investigation of the “Transitional Support for Economic Recovery Credit Operation (TSERO) and Emergency

254 See The World Bank Inspection Panel, Investigation Report India: Mumbai Urban Transport (December 21, 2005), available at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTINSPECTIONPANEL/Resources/IPNMUTPFINAL.pdf. 255 Id. at xiii-xiv. 256 Id. at xxv, xxvii. 257 Id. at xxiv. 258 Id.at 151. 259 Id. at xxix. 260 Id. at xxx. 261 Id.at xxiii. 262 Id. at xxi. 263 The Inspection Panel, Annual Report July 1 2005- June 30 2006, available at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTINSPECTIONPANEL/Resources/AnnualReport05-06.pdf.

34

Economic and Social Reunification Support Project (EESRSP)” in the Democratic Republic of Congo.264 A coalition of Pygmy communities allege that forestry-sector reform projects financed by the World Bank were to be instituted without consulting local communities, and that this approach “fails to address the concerns of the indigenous peoples and the issues related to the sustainable management of the Congolese forests and to the development of their inhabitants.”265 The communities complained that new logging concessions could potentially “lead to the destruction of their natural living environment and means of subsistence,” causing “serious social conflict.”266 The investigation is ongoing.

vi. Honduras Land Administration Project The Inspection Panel also improved and began an investigation into a complaint in response to the World Bank’s “Land Administration Project” in Honduras.267 The March 30, 2006 complaint was filed by an organization representing the indigenous Garifuna population of Honduras who fear that a Bank-approved land titling procedure would destroy the communities’ preferred, collective property regime and would also lead to loss of their land that they depend on for their livelihood, negatively impacting their rights. The Requesters allege that the Bank is violating its own procedures, as well as the International Labour Organization’s Convention Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (No. 169), which define rights of ownership, tenure, and conservation of lands that indigenous people have traditionally occupied. The Requesters also allege that they were not consulted during formulation of the project.

2. World Health Organization (WHO) During its fifty-eighth session held May 16-25, 2005, the World Health Assembly (the

WHO’s decision-making body) passed Resolution 58.1, entitled “Health action in relation to crises and disasters, with particular emphasis on the earthquakes and tsunamis of December 2004.” 268 The resolution reaffirmed internationally agreed-upon development goals including those in the UN Millennium Declaration, and noted that approximately 20 countries are at high risk of serious natural or man-made events, increasing the number of persons at risk to between 200 million and 300 million.269 The resolution emphasized health-based rights by urging states

264 Id. at 22; See also http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTINSPECTIONPANEL/0,,contentMDK:20742493~menuPK:64129250~pagePK:64129751~piPK:64128378~theSitePK:380794,00.html. 265 Indigenous Pygmy Organizations and Pygmy Support Organizations in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Request to the World Bank Inspection Panel, (Oct. 30, 2005), at 4, available at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTINSPECTIONPANEL/Resources/RequestforInspectionEnglish.pdf 266 Id. at 9. 267 Request No. 38, The Inspection Panel, Annual Report July 1 2005- June 30 2006, available at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTINSPECTIONPANEL/Resources/AnnualReport05-06.pdf. See also http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTINSPECTIONPANEL/0,,contentMDK:20782831~pagePK:64129751~piPK:64128378~theSitePK:380794,00.html 268 See World Health Organization Fifty-Eighth Session, May 16-25, 2005, World Health Assembly Resolutions and Decisions, available at http://policy.who.int/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?infobase=WHA&softpage=Browse_Frame_Pg42. 269 See World Health Organization, Health Action in Relation to Crises and Disasters, with particular emphasis on the Earthquakes and Tsunamis of December 26, 2004, at 2, Resolution WHA 58.1 (May 20, 2005), available at Id.

35

to improve mental health services, to prepare risk-preparedness plans that give adequate attention to public health, and to ensure equitable access to health care.270

In December 2005, the WHO released the report “Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Health Synthesis” (Health Synthesis Report).271 The Health Synthesis Report was published as part of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, and illustrated the direct link between ecosystem injury and human health problems. The report acknowledged how environmental circumstances affect disease transmission, the intensity of natural disasters, drinking water supplies, fuel supply, and human nutrition, among others.272

Declaring that “[c]lean air is considered to be a basic requirement for human health and well-being,” the WHO also released the report “Air quality guidelines for particulate matter, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide” on October 5, 2006.273 The report links air pollution to two million premature deaths each year.274 Also in 2006, WHO released an “OzonAction Education Pack” to help children understand the risks that a weakened ozone layer poses both to human health and to the environment. 275

The WHO also released a report in 2006 asserting that twenty-three percent of all premature deaths are caused by environmental exposure (with higher rates in the developing world), due to preventable environmental causes, such as unsafe household water storage, unsafe fuels, and poor management of toxic chemicals in the home and workplace.276 Furthermore, thirty-six percent of deaths of children 14 years of age and younger are due to environmental factors.277 The report also explores the connections between the MDGs, environmental health, and death and disease reduction.278 Also in 2006, WHO noted that without a dramatic increase in investment, the world will miss the MDGs for sanitation and safe drinking water.279

3. Global Environmental Facility (GEF) The GEF is the financial mechanism for implementing the international conventions on

biodiversity, climate change, and persistent organic pollutants, as well as for the Convention to

270 See id at 2. 271 See Environment News Service, World Health Body Links Ecosystem Injury to Human Health Problems, (Dec. 9, 2005), available at http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/dec2005/2005-12-09-02.asp. 272 Id. See also World Health Organization, Ecosystems and Human Health: some findings from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, available at http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.aspx. 273 See World Health Organization, WHO challenges world to improve air quality, (Oct. 5, 2006), http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/pr52/en/index.html 274 See World Health Organization, WHO Air quality guidelines for particulate matter, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide, Global update 2005: Summary of risk assessment, (2006), available at http://www.who.int/phe/air/aqg2006execsum.pdf. 275 “Reducing the health risks to children from ozone layer depletion,” (Sept. 15, 2006), available at http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/pr51/en/index.html 276 See World Health Organization, Preventing Disease Through Healthy Environments, (2006), available at http://www.who.int/quantifying_ehimpacts/publications/preventingdisease.pdf; WHO, Executive Summary, Preventing Disease Through Healthy Environments: Towards an estimate of the environmental burden of disease,”(2006), available at http://www.who.int/quantifying_ehimpacts/publications/prevdisexecsume.pdf. 277 Id., Executive Summary at 7. 278 Id. 279 See, World Health Organization, World in danger of missing sanitation target; drinking-water target also at risk, new report shows. Sept. 5, 2006, http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/pr47/en/index.html.

36

Combat Desertification.280 The GEF is jointly implemented by UNDP, UNEP and the World Bank, and collaborates closely with other treaty bodies and national governments, providing grants to developing countries for projects that benefit the global environment and promote sustainable livelihoods in local communities.281

In 2005, GEF released a number of publications relevant to land degradation and the resultant impact on human populations. These reports address various issues surrounding sustainable land management including, among others, “Sustainable Land Management: Global Challenges and Local Realities,” and “Promoting Sustainable Land Management.” All of the reports were released to coincide with the October 2005 Conference of Parties of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. This increasing volume of work on environmental issues reflects a shift in world opinion towards mainstreaming environmental concerns.

In addition, the GEF’s 2005 Annual Report focused on the global environment’s health as a sustainer of life and livelihoods worldwide, specifically in the GEF’s focus areas of climate change, biodiversity conservation, international waters, persistent organic pollutants, land degradation, and ozone depletion.282 The report reiterated the importance of investing in environmental health in these areas to improve human health, livelihoods, food production, economic advancement, and political stability.283

The Third Assembly of the GEF was held on August 29-30, 2006, in Cape Town, South Africa.284 Held every four years, the GEF Assembly gathers ministers and high-level officials from GEF member States to review the policies and operations of the GEF. At the Third Assembly, donor nations renewed their commitment to funding mechanisms to protect the global environment. The GEF held its 2006 Council Meeting December 5-8, 2006, during which it discussed current and proposed projects and initiatives.285

4. International Labour Organization

The International Labour Organization (ILO) is a specialized agency within the United Nations, the mission of which is to promote social justice, human rights, and labor rights.286 Founded in 1919 as part of the League of Nations, the ILO became the first specialized agency of the UN in 1946.287 The ILO’s Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR) examines ILO member nations’ adherence to their obligations

280 Global Environment Facility, 2005 Annual Report, Fertile Ground: Seeding National Actions for the Global Environment, available at http://www.gefweb.org/Outreach/outreach-publications/documents/2005_Annual_Report.pdf. 281 Global Environmental Facility, What is the GEF?, http://www.gefweb.org/What_is_the_GEF/what_is_the_gef.html (last visited Feb. 26, 2006). 282 Supra note Error! Bookmark not defined. 283 Id. at 14. 284 News Release, GEF, World Environment Body Gets a US$ 3.13 Billion Boost; New Funds will Combat Environmental Degradation, (Aug. 28, 2006), available at http://www.gefweb.org/Whats_New/GEFFourthReplenishment.html. 285 GEF Council Meeting, Joint Summary of the Chairs, GEF/C.30/CRP5, (Dec. 8, 2006), available at http://www.gefweb.org/Documents/Council_Documents/GEF_30/documents/C.30.CRP.5JointSummaryoftheChairs.pdf. 286 See ILO, About the ILO, available at http://www.ilo.org/public/english/about/index.htm. 287 See id.

37

under ILO conventions.288 Among these conventions is the 1989 convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (No. 169),289 that the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous People cites as an “ineluctable international standard for the protection and promotion of these people’s human rights.”290 Convention 169 has been ratified by 17 ILO member states, including many Latin American nations.291 The Committee of Experts can receive complaints directly, and the Special Rapporteur notes that the procedure enables indigenous groups to participate directly by lodging complaints for violations of rights guaranteed in the convention.292

In 2005, the CEACR responded to a complaint from the indigenous community of Santo Domingo de Olmos in Peru alleging that the government of Peru had expropriated over 100,000 acres of its ancestral lands.293 The Olmos community asserted that Peru was conceding these lands to private developers of a hydroelectric project.294 This violated Articles 13 and 15 of Convention 169, affirming, respectively, indigenous people’s rights of ownership of lands they have traditionally occupied, and right to benefit from natural resources thereupon, as well as Article 14, the right of indigenous people to consultation and participation in government decisions that might result in development on their traditional land.295 The Committee requested that the Peruvian government remove any procedural obstacles preventing the Olmos community from securing its rights to its ancestral land, and from participating in decisions about that land.296

In 2006, the CEACR continued to urge the government of Argentina to address difficulties that indigenous groups experienced when attempting to register with that country’s National Registrar of Indigenous Communities.297 A previous ILO complaint had alleged that the National Institute of Indigenous Affairs (INAI) had recognized only 15% of 850 indigenous communities.298 The current CEACR report recommends that while all indigenous communities 288 See ILO, Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, available at http://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/norm/applying/committee.htm. 289 See ILO, C169 Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989, available at http://www.ilo.org/ilolex/english/convdisp2.htm (last visited March 2, 2007). 290 See UN Econ. & Soc. Council [ECOSOC], UN Comm’n on Human Rights, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, UN DOC E/CN.4/2006/78 (Feb. 16, 2006), available at http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G06/108/67/PDF/G0610867.pdf?OpenElement. Para. 56 at 14. 291 See id. 292 See id. 293 See CEACR, Observation, CEACR 2005/76th Session, available at http://webfusion.ilo.org/public/db/standards/normes/appl/appl-displaycomment.cfm?hdroff=1&ctry=0490&year=2005&type=O&conv=C169&lang=EN, para. 2. (last accessed March 2, 2007). 294 See id. 295 See id., para.4. 296 See id. ,para 6. 297 See CEACR, Observation, CEACR 2006/77th Session, available at http://webfusion.ilo.org/public/db/standards/normes/appl/appl-displaycomment.cfm?hdroff=1&ctry=0020&year=2006&type=O&conv=C169&lang=EN, para. 3. (last accessed March 2, 2007). 298 See CEACR, Direct request, CEACR 2006/77th Session, available at http://webfusion.ilo.org/public/db/standards/normes/appl/appl-displayAllComments.cfm?hdroff=1&ctry=0020&conv=C169&Lang=EN (scroll down to “Direct request,” para.4, last visited March 2, 2007).

38

have now been registered, the government should speed up recognition of the legal personality of these communities so that each community may exercise its full rights.299 The Committee notes approvingly that Argentine courts are now enforcing Article 15 of ILO Convention 169, which affirms the right of indigenous groups to participate in administrative decisions that affect their rights to natural resources, but notes that not all Argentine provinces are consulting with indigenous communities in a uniform way.300

5. Group of Eight (G8) The G8 is a group of eight industrialized nations with developed economies and

democratic systems of government: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America. Each year the G8 leaders invite non-member countries to join their annual meeting of heads of states at the G8 Summit as observers. At the Summit, the leaders of the eight member countries attempt to reach informal agreements on major issues, and measures that they can take individually to achieve their goals more effectively. This small, informal grouping is capable of setting the global agenda due to the economic and political weight of its members and their shared commitment to global security and prosperity.301

The 2005 summit, held July 6-8, 2005 in Gleneagles, Scotland, focused on Africa and climate change. While the Africa communiqué mainly concerned debt-relief and healthcare, the Africa Progress Report addressed the link between the environment and health rights in its chapter on water resource management.302 On the issue of climate change, the G8 issued a communiqué entitled “Gleneagles Plan of Action: Climate Change, Clean Energy and Sustainable Development.”303 In the chapeau to the Plan of Action, the G8 nations collectively recognized climate change as a long-term challenge that potentially affects every part of the globe, and pledged support to the goals contained in the Millennium Declaration.304 In addressing the human and environmental harm caused by pollution, the communiqué recognized the impacts of environmental degradation on human rights when it stated, “reducing pollution protects public health and ecosystems. This is particularly true in the developing world. There is a need to improve air and water quality in order to alleviate suffering from respiratory disease, reduce public health costs and prolong lives.”305

The 2006 Summit, held July 15-17 in St. Petersburg, addressed “Global Energy Security.”306 While much of the communiqué focused on the development of transparent, efficient and competitive global energy markets, the leaders also reaffirmed their commitment to 299 See supra note 142, Observation, CEACR 2006/77th Session, para 3. 300 See id. para. 5 & 7. 301 See G8 Gleneagles 2005, G8 Background and History – What is the G8 Summit?, http://www.g8.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1078995913300 (last visited Nov. 4, 2005). 302 See G8 Gleneagles 2005, Progress Report by the Africa Regional Representatives on Implementation of the Africa Action Plan (July 1, 2005), http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/PostG8_Gleneagles_AfricaProgressReport,0.pdf. 303 See G8 Gleneagles 2005, Gleneagles Plan of Action: Climate Change, Clean Energy and Sustainable Development, http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/PostG8_Gleneagles_CCChangePlanofAction.pdf (last visited Nov. 4, 2005). 304 See id.,, para. 1 at 1. 305 See id., para. 1(d) at 1. 306 See G8 Saint Petersburg 2005, Global Energy Security, (July 16, 2006), http://en.g8russia.ru/docs/11.html.

39

the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change’s objectives, and linked stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions with “improving the global environment, enhancing energy security, and cutting air pollution in conjunction with our vigorous efforts to reduce energy poverty.”307 The leaders saw that facilitating access to energy for poor populations would help achieve the UN Millennium Development Goals. The leaders noted the importance of “cleaner, more efficient and low-carbon energy technologies” to achieving sustainable development.308

6. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)

The OECD is a group of thirty member-countries whose mandate is to promote democratic government and a market economy. It has active relationships with seventy other countries, non-governmental organizations and civil society groups.309 The Organisation provides a setting where governments can compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practices and coordinate domestic and international policies.310

The Environment Policy Committee of the OECD held a high-level special session on the costs of inaction in the environmental realm on April 14, 2005.311 The issues addressed during this session included human health impacts from pollution, climate change and biodiversity loss.312 The OECD also convened the International Conference on Sustainable Cities on October 13-14, 2005.313 Additionally, in one of its 2005 reports, the OECD noted that “the relationship between the environment and children’s health has been the subject of increasing interest.”314

The OECD recognized the social implications of environmental harm and degradation in its June 2006 Policy Report.315 The report examined the distributional effects of environmental policies, especially the effects on the health of poor communities.316 The report focused on water, noting that access to clean potable water is essential for human health.317

307 See Id. 308 Id. 309 The Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development, About OECD, http://www.oecd.org/about/0,2337,en_2649_201185_1_1_1_1_1,00.html (last visited Nov. 4, 2005). 310 The Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development, The OECD: What is it?, http://www.oecd.org/document/18/0,2340,en_2649_201185_2068050_1_1_1_1,00.html#what (last visited Nov. 4, 2005). 311 The Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development, Environment Policy Committee High-Level Special Session on the Costs of Inaction (April 14, 2005), http://www.oecd.org/document/60/0,2340,en_2649_201185_34723644_1_1_1_1,00.html. 312 Id. 313 The Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development, International Conference on Sustainable Cities: Linking Competitiveness with Social Cohesion (June 10, 2005), http://www.oecd.org/document/48/0,2340,en_2649_201185_35463472_1_1_1_1,00.html. 314 The Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development, The Valuation of Environmental Health Risks to Children: Methodological and Policy Issues, at 3, Report ENV/EPOC/WPNEP(2004)15/FINAL (Sept. 2, 2005), available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/18/11/35381312.pdf; see also The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, Children’s Environmental Health Indicators: A Survey, Report ENV/EPOC/WPNEP(2004)16/FINAL (Sept. 8, 2005), available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/18/12/35381349.pdf. 315 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, The Social Dimensions of Environmental Policy, POLICY BRIEF (June 2006). 316 Id. at 2. 317 Id. at 3.

40

E. International Treaties, Treaty Bodies and International Conferences

1. The Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Århus Convention)

The Århus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) was adopted on June 25, 1998 in Århus, Denmark.318 It was signed by 35 countries and the European Community, and it entered into force on October 30, 2001.319 Although regional in scope, the Århus Convention has global significance. It is the first multi-national treaty on the public’s right to access to information and to participation in environmental decision-making. The Preamble to the Convention states that “every person has the right to live in an environment adequate to his or her health and well-being, and the duty, both individually and in association with others, to protect and improve the environment for the benefit of present and future generations.”320 The Convention establishes basic rules to encourage citizen involvement in environmental matters, provide public access to environmental information, and ensure public participation in environmental decision-making.321 It also improves enforcement and allows the public to seek judicial redress when environmental laws are violated.322 It thus gives citizens access to information about government activity that may violate their environmental rights, and it assures citizens’ ability to challenge those activities. As of December 2006, thirty nine nations had ratified the treaty; Sweden became a party in 2005, Greece, Luxembourg and Slovakia ratified the treaty in 2006.323

On February 17, 2005, the European Community ratified the Århus Convention.324 Several months later, during the second meeting of the parties in Almaty, May 25-27, 2005, the member-states adopted the Almaty Declaration which stated that an increase in the number of signatories had strengthened the protection of citizens’ environmental rights and environmental democracy throughout Europe.325

318 UN Econ. Comm’n for Europe, Introducing the Aarhus Convention, http://www.unece.org/env/pp (last visited Nov. 8, 2005). 319 UN Economic Comm’n for Europe, Participants, http://www.unece.org/env/pp/ctreaty.htm (last visited Nov. 8, 2005). 320 U. N. Econ. Comm’n for Europe, Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, UN Doc. ECE/CEP/43 (June 25, 1998), available at http://www.mem.dk/aarhus-conference/issues/public-participation/ppartikler.htm. 321 See Press Release, European Comm’n, Mining Waste: Commission Proposes New Rules to Prevent Pollution and Accidents (June 2, 2003), http://www.europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/03/784&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en. 322 Id. 323 UN Econ. Comm’n for Europe, Press Release, Aarhus Membership climbs to Forty: Germany to become 40th Party to environmental rights treaty (Jan. 18, 2007), available at http://www.unece.org/env/pp/press.releases/PR07_env03e_H.pdf. 324 See Press Release, United Nations Economic Comm’n for Europe (UNECE) (Feb. 25, 2005), http://www.unece.org/env/pp/press.rel.htm (follow link to 25 February). 325 UN ECOSOC, Economic Comm’n for Europe, Report of the Second Meeting of Parties: Almaty Declaration, at 1, UN DOC. ECE/MP.PP/2005/2/Add.1 (June 20, 2005), available at http://www.unece.org/env/documents/2005/pp/ece/ece.mp.pp.2005.2.add.1.e.pdf.

41

The Declaration noted that the Århus Convention reflects the important link between human rights and environmental protection, a link that has not only been recognized in Europe, but in other regions of the world as well.326 The Almaty Declaration stated that the long-term strategic vision of the Århus Convention was to secure the enjoyment of rights of environmental democracy, and called upon all states that have not ratified the Convention to put in place the necessary legislation, procedures and mechanisms for implementing the various provisions of the convention and, in the interim, to apply the provisions to the maximum extent possible.327 In particular, the declaration focused on methods to improve implementation and strengthen compliance mechanisms.328 The application of the Almaty Guidelines in other international fora was also discussed during the second meeting of the parties.329

On March 3, 2006, the European Community ratified the Århus Convention’s Protocol on Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers.330 The Protocol aims “to enhance public access to information through the establishment of coherent, nationwide pollutant release and transfer registers (PRTRs).”331 The Protocol identifies itself as a mechanism “contributing to the ability of every person of present and future generations to live in an environment adequate to his or her health and well-being, by ensuring the development of publicly accessible environmental information systems.”332 Through the Protocol, signatory parties hope to “increase corporate accountability, reduce pollution and promote sustainable development” using a “precautionary approach.”333 By establishing the registers, the signatories wish to “facilitate public participation in environmental decision-making as well as contribute to the prevention and reduction of pollution of the environment.”334

2. Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal

The Basel Convention, aimed at regulating international trade in hazardous wastes, was adopted on March 22, 1989 by the Conference of Plenipotentiaries.335 The fourth meeting of the Open-Ended Working Group of the Basel Convention took place from July 4 to 8, 2005 in Geneva. The decision adopted by the group on abandonment of ships on land or in ports expressed concern that this abandonment could have effects on human health and the environment.336 In another decision, the working group recognized that a cleaner future and 326 Id. para. 3 at 2. 327 Id. para. 4 at 2. See also id. para. 13 at 4. 328 See id. paras. 14-18 at 4. 329 See UN Econ. & Soc. Council (ECOSOC), Economic Comm’n for Europe, Decision II/4 Application of the Convention in International Forums, UN DOC. ECE/MP.PP/2005/Add.5 (June 20, 2005), available at http://www.unece.org/env/documents/2005/pp/ece/ece.mp.pp.2005.2.add.5.e.pdf. 330 See UN Econ. Comm’n for Europe, Kiev Protocol on Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers, available at http://www.unece.org/env/pp/prtr/docs/PRTR%20Protocol%20English.pdf (last visited March 1, 2007). 331 See UN Econ. Comm’n for Europe, Introduction, available at http://www.unece.org/env/pp/prtr.htm (last visited March 1, 2007). 332 See UN Econ. Comm’n for Europe, Kiev Protocol on Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers, available at http://www.unece.org/env/pp/prtr/docs/PRTR%20Protocol%20English.pdf (last visited March 1, 2007). 333 See id. 334 See id. 335 Secretariat of the Basel Convention, Introduction, http://www.basel.int/pub/basics.html (last visited Nov. 10 2005). 336 See Basel Secretariat, Open Ended Working Group Report, Decision OEWG-IV/6: Abandonment of Ships on Land or in Ports, 21 (July 13, 2005), available at http://www.basel.int/meetings/oewg/oewg4/documents/18e.pdf.

42

environmentally sound management of wastes are important components of human health and environmental quality.337

The Fifth Session of the Open-ended Working Group was held April 3-7, 2006 in Geneva.338 The group reaffirmed that the transport and trade in hazardous materials continues to be an important international issue with an increasing number of countries implementing the Basel Convention.339 The group focused on ship recycling, noting the harm to human health and the environment posed by the practice.340 Including the recent addition of the Central African Republic, 168 parties had joined the Convention as of April 2006.341

3. Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)

The Stockholm Convention, which entered into force on May 17, 2004, is a global treaty to protect human health and the environment from persistent organic pollutants (POPs). It sets an initial goal of ending the use and release of the twelve most dangerous POPs.342 It aims to eliminate or restrict the production and use of all intentionally produced POPs (i.e. industrial chemicals and pesticides) and seeks to continually minimize or eliminate releases of POPs such as dioxins and furans. Additionally, the Stockholm Convention requires that stockpiles be managed and disposed of in an environmentally sound manner.

The first Conference of Parties (COP) took place from May 2 to 6, 2005 in Punta Del Este, Uruguay. The conference report noted that the environment had been called the ‘common strand linking all the Millennium Development Goals’ and that many diseases arose from the human disruption of ecosystems.343 In terms of policy and strategy, the COP implicated human rights issues by deciding that activities in furtherance of the Stockholm Convention need to promote sustainable national socio-economic development, further poverty reduction, and be consistent with existing national environmental management programs geared towards the protection of human health and the environment.344 At the COP four new chemicals were proposed for inclusion in the existing list of the most dangerous POPs.345

The global efforts to protect human health and the environment from harms caused POPs continued at the Second Meeting of the Conference of the Parties, held May 1-5, 2006 in 337 Id. at 29, Decision OEWG-IV/15: Resource Mobilisation. 338 Open-ended Working Group of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, Participant Report, UNEP/CHW/OEWG/5/INF/1/Rev.1 (Apr. 3-6, 2006). 339 Id. 340 Open-ended Working Group of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, Report of the contact group on ship dismantling, 5 (Apr. 7, 2006), available at http://www.basel.int/meetings/oewg/oewg5/docs/i25e.pdf. 341 United Nations Environment Program, Status of Convention, BASIL CONVENTION BULLETIN 4 (Apr. 2006). 342 See Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, May 22, 2001, 40 I.L.M. 532, available at http://www.pops.int. 343 See United Nations Environment Programme, Conference of Parties to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, Report of the Conference of Parties to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants on the Work of its First Meeting, para. 76 at 10, UN DOC. UNEP/POPS/COP.1/31 (May 6, 2005), available at http://www.pops.int/documents/meetings/cop_1/meetingdocs/en/cop1_31/COP1_REPORT.pdf. 344 See id. at 53, Annex to Decision SC-1/9. 345 Press Release, United Nations Environment Programme, Governments Take Decisive Action to Rid the World of Persistent Organic Pollutants through the Stockholm Convention (May 6, 2005), http://www.pops.int/documents/meetings/cop_1/press/pr5-05POPsCOP1.pdf.

43

Geneva, Switzerland.346 In collaboration with the World Health Organization, the parties agreed to initiate studies to monitor the health effects of DDT and determine whether the substance was needed for pest control.347

4. Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade

The Rotterdam Convention is a multilateral environmental agreement designed to promote shared responsibility and cooperative efforts among parties in the international trade of certain hazardous chemicals, in order to protect human health and the environment from potential harm, and to contribute to their environmentally sound use by facilitating information exchange about their characteristics, providing for a national decision-making process on their import and export, and disseminating these decisions to parties.348 It entered into force on February 24, 2004.

The second Conference of Parties was held in Rome, between September 26 and 30, 2005. During the second COP, steps were taken toward ensuring compliance with the convention and toward the regional and national delivery of technical assistance.349 The COP recognized the link between environmental harm and human rights when it noted that “the hazardous chemicals and pesticides covered by the Convention contribute to poverty through their adverse effects on human health and environmental resources.”350

The third Conference of Parties was held October 9-13, 2006 in Geneva. During the COP, the Parties assessed the status of implementation of the Convention351 and continued to work towards regional and national delivery of technical assistance.352 The COP also received a report from the Chairman of the Special Session of the World Trade Organization Committee on Trade and the Environment. The report addressed implementation of Paragraph 31(iii) of the Doha Declaration relating to environmental goods and services, and focused on renewable energy and air pollution control.353

346 See UN Env’t Programme, Second Conference of Parties to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, Report of the Conference of Parties to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants on the Work of its First Meeting, UN DOC. UNEP/POP/COP.2/30 (May 15, 2006), available at http://www.pops.int/documents/meetings/cop_2/report/advance%20K0651526%20COP2%20report.pdf. 347 Id. at para. 38. 348 The Rotterdam Convention, What is the Rotterdam Convention?, http://www.pic.int/en/viewpage.asp?id_cat=0 (last visited Nov. 10, 2005). 349 See The Rotterdam Convention, Report of the Conference of the Parties to the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade on the work of its second meeting, at 26, UN DOC. R/C 2-4, UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.2/19 (Oct. 12, 2005), available at http://www.pic.int/cops/reports/z34/English/K0582936%20PICCOP2%20report.doc. 350 See id. 351 Status of Implementation of the Convention, (June 7, 2006), available at http://www.pic.int/cops/cop3/d4)/English/K0651645%20-%20COP%203%20-%204.doc 352 Technical Assistance under the Rotterdam Convention, (June 9, 2006), available at http://www.pic.int/cops/cop3/o15)/English/K0651708%20COP-3-15.doc 353 Report by the Chairman of the Special Session of the Committee on Trade and the Environment to the Trade Negotiations Committee, (July 11, 2006), available at http://www.pic.int/cops/cop3/yinf8/English/K0652020%20COP%203-INF8.doc

44

5. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Cartagena Protocol

Signed by 150 government leaders at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is dedicated to promoting sustainable development. Conceived as a practical tool for translating the principles of Agenda 21 into reality, the CBD recognizes that, beyond plants, animals, and micro organisms and their ecosystems, biological diversity concerns people and their need for food security, medicine, fresh air and water, shelter, and a clean and healthy environment in which to live.354

The report of the first meeting of the ad hoc open-ended working group on review of implementation of the convention identified “maintenance of goods and services from biodiversity to support human well-being” as an indicator of the CBD’s goals.355 In a related development, the Convention Secretariat released a notification containing a joint statement by heads of all the biodiversity-related conventions on the role of biodiversity in the achievement of the MDGs.356 The statement noted that the realization of the MDGs depends on sustainable use of biodiversity and more equitable sharing of its benefits.357 Linking environmental rights to other fundamental human rights, the statement emphasized that “[b]iodiversity can indeed help alleviate hunger and poverty, it can promote good human health, and be the basis for ensuring freedom and equity for all.”358

The second Conference of Parties to the CBD’s Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety took place in Montreal, May 30 - June 3, 2005. The report of the COP enumerated the concerns of many individual country representatives regarding the effect of Living Modified Organisms (LMOs) on human health and the environment.359 The report also showcased decisions adopted at the conference, including the decision on public awareness and participation, which exemplified growing international deference to the right to information and public participation in environmental matters.360

354 See The Convention on Biological Diversity, About the CBD, http://www.biodiv.org/convention/default.shtml (last visited Nov. 10, 2005). 355 See United Nations Environmental Programme, The Convention on Biological Diversity, Report of the first meeting of the ad-hoc open ended working group on review of the implementation of the Convention, at 51, UN DOC. UNEP/CBD/COP/8/4 (Sept. 20, 2005), available at http://www.biodiv.org/doc/meetings/cop/cop-08/official/cop-08-04-en.pdf. 356 See Notification, Convention on Biodiversity, Release of a Joint Statement by the Heads of all the Biodiversity-related Conventions on the role of Biodiversity in Achieving the Millennium Development Goals, Notification SCBD/I&O/CHM/DA/50346 (Sept. 12, 2005), http://www.biodiv.org/doc/notifications/2005/ntf-2005-097-sus-en.pdf. 357 See id. at 2. 358 See id. See also Press Release, Convention on Biological Diversity, Achievement of Millennium Development Goals Requires Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity (Sept. 12, 2005), http://www.biodiv.org/doc/press/2005/pr-2005-09-12-suse-en.pdf. 359 See United Nations Environmental Programme, Convention on Biodiversity, Report of the Second Meeting of the Conference of Parties to the CBD serving as a Meeting of Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, UN DOC. UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/2/15 (June 6, 2005), available at http://www.biodiv.org/doc/meetings/bs/mop-02/official/mop-02-15-en.pdf (for example, see the statement of the Indian representative in paragraph 25 at 8 and the statement of the Peruvian representative in paragraph 30 at 9). 360 See id. at 54.

45

The eighth meeting of Parties to the Convention met in Curitiba, Brazil, March 20-31, 2006.361 The report of the meeting proposed a framework on biodiversity relating to food and nutrition.362 The report noted, “Environmental integrity is critical for maintaining and building positive options for human well-being.”363 It also recommended “[a]n interdisciplinary initiative on biodiversity for food and nutrition, based on the ecosystem approach that makes the most of locally-available biodiversity and initiative to address nutrition problems will assist countries and stakeholders in achieving the Millennium Development Goals.”364 The report urges parties to take action for the sake of protection of the environmental, sustainable agricultural, adequate nutrition, and healthy human communities.365

6. The Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) The Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) is the international organization of parliaments of

sovereign states. It was established in 1889, and is the focal point for world-wide parliamentary dialogue. The IPU works for peace and cooperation among peoples and for the firm establishment of representative democracy. The IPU supports the efforts of the United Nations, whose objectives it shares, and works in close co-operation with it and with regional inter-parliamentary organizations, and international intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations that are motivated by the same ideals.366

In 2005 the IPU passed two resolutions urging states to ensure environmental justice in the context of natural disasters. During the 112th assembly, held April 3-8, 2005 in Manila, the assembly unanimously adopted a resolution which called upon the international community to renew its determination to prevent disasters where possible, to minimize the impact of unavoidable natural disasters, and to strengthen cooperation in disaster prevention.367 The resolution noted that poor people in developing nations frequently suffer the most damage after a natural disaster, and that the secondary effects of natural disasters, such as food shortages and the deterioration of sanitary conditions, are enduring problems.368

In a similar resolution in its 113th session held October 17-19, 2005 in Geneva, the assembly expressed deep concern at the recurrence of natural disasters and their increasing impact in recent years, resulting in massive loss of life and long-term adverse social, economic and environmental consequences throughout the world. The resolution recognized the particularly susceptible position of women, children and other vulnerable groups in regards to the

361 See United Nations Environment Programme, Report Of The Eighth Meeting Of The Parties To The Convention On Biological Diversity, UN DOC. UNEP/POP/COP.2/30 (June 15, 2006), available at http://www.pops.int/documents/meetings/cop_2/report/advance%20K0651526%20COP2%20report.pdf. 362 Id. 363 Id. at 281. 364 Id. 365 Id. 366 See Inter-Parliamentary Union, What is IPU, http://www.ipu.org/english/whatipu.htm (last visited Nov. 11, 2005). 367 See Inter-Parliamentary Union, Natural Disasters: The Role of Parliaments in Prevention, Rehabilitation, Reconstruction and Protection of Vulnerable Groups, available at http://www.ipu.org/conf-e/112/112emrg.htm (last visited Nov. 11, 2005). 368 See id.

46

effects of natural disasters, and the need to pay special attention to the welfare of these persons.369

During the 114th session of the IPU, held in Nairobi May 7-12, 2006, the IPU passed a resolution entitled “The role of Parliaments in environmental management and in combating global degradation of the environment.”370 The resolution emphasizes “that preservation of the environment is essential to poverty eradication and the achievement of the MDGs,” and “that environmentalism should become a way of life that governs the behaviour and activities of all.” The resolution endorses a full catalogue of environmental human rights. Among many provisions, the resolution notes the particular threat of environmental degradation to developing countries; ties globalization to environmental degradation, and notes that environmental preservation is essential to poverty eradication. The resolution also recognizes that “scientific uncertainty concerning the causes of global warming can no longer be an excuse for not taking any action” and urges a number of immediate, specific actions to reverse global climate change.371

At the 115th session, held in Geneva October 16-18, 2006, the Assembly reiterated the need for Parliaments to work in coordination to achieve the MDGs, especially the problems of debt, poverty, and corruption. This included a call to “[r]evitalize regional coordination to tackle environmental problems.”372

7. The Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is a broad, multilateral platform where countries address global climate change issues and work towards emissions reductions, while preparing for the impact of climate change. The Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC is the first legally binding international agreement to mandate the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, having entered into force on February 16, 2005.373 Although the Protocol does not specifically mention the right to life or the right to health, because climate change interferes with the fulfillment of several human rights, its implementation may enhance the protection of these rights (and others) from adverse environmental impacts.

The eleventh session of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC took place from November 28th to December 9th, 2005 in Montreal, parallel to the first ever Meeting of the Parties (MOP) to the Kyoto Protocol. At the COP, decisions were adopted outlining future international action on climate change, in which the importance of addressing climate change in

369 See id. 370 See Inter-Parliamentary Union, The role of Parliaments in environmental management and in combating global degradation of the environment,” Resolution adopted by consensus by the 114th Assembly (May 12, 2006) available at http://www.ipu.org/conf-e/114/114-2.htm. 371 See id. 372 See Inter-Parliamentary Union, The role of Parliaments in overseeing the achievement of the millennium development goals, in particular with regard to the problem of debt and the eradication of poverty and corruption, Resolution adopted by consensus by the 115th Assembly (Oct. 18,2006), available at http://www.ipu.org/conf-e/115/115-2.htm. 373 See United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Feature: Kyoto Protocol, http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php (last visited Nov. 10, 2005).

47

light of its effects on humans’ social and economic development was cited.374 Special attention was paid to the effects of climate change on Arctic environments and Arctic peoples.375

A new working group was also established to discuss future commitments for developed countries for the period after 2012, and the second Kyoto mechanism - Joint Implementation - was launched and its governing body set up.376 Joint Implementation will allow developed countries to invest in other developed countries. Adaptation to the impacts of climate change was also an important focus of the Conference, and technology was at the centre of discussion on efforts to reduce emissions and adapt to climate impacts. 377

At the twelfth session of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC, held in Nairobi November 6-17, 2006, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan declared that “[c]limate change is not just an environmental issue, as too many people still believe. It is an all encompassing threat.”378 Noting that “[p]oor people already live on the front lines of pollution, disaster and the degradation of resources and land,” the Secretary-General urges an end to “denial” and a rededication to meaningful cuts in greenhouses gas emissions.379

8. The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification

The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification was adopted in Paris on June 17, 1994 and entered into force December 26, 1996. The Convention recognized desertification as a major problem of concern to many countries in all regions of the world. It also acknowledges desertification’s contribution to food insecurity, famine and poverty, and social, economic and political tensions that can result in the violation of the rights to life, water and health, among others. The Convention to Combat Desertification is the only internationally recognized, legally binding instrument that addresses the problem of land degradation in dryland rural areas.

The seventh session of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention to Combat Desertification took place in Nairobi, Kenya, October 17-28, 2005.380 In its follow-up to the outcome of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, the COP adopted Decision 2, which

374 See, e.g., United Nations Climate Change Conference, Decision -/CP.11 Dialogue on Long-term Cooperative Action to Address Climate Change by Enhancing Implementation of the Convention, available at http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_11/application/pdf/cop11_00_dialogue_on_long-term_coop_action.pdf; see also, e.g., United Nations Climate Change Conference, Decision -/CP.11 Five-year Programme of Work of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice on Impacts, Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change, available at http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_11/application/pdf/cop11_01_4e_i_adpatation_five_year_prog_sbsta.pdf. 375 See Five-year Programme,supra note 374. 376 See Press Release, UNFCC, United Nations Climate Change Conference Agrees on Future Critical Steps to Tackle Climate Change, Dec. 10, 2005, http://unfccc.int/files/press/news_room/press_releases_and_advisories/application/pdf/press051210_cop11.pdf. 377 See id. 378 See UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Report of the Conference of the Parties on its twelfth session, held at Nairobi from 6 to 17 November 2006, Part One: Proceedings, Annex 1, Statement by the Secretary-General of the United Nations (Jan. 26, 2007), available at http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2006/cop12/eng/05.pdf. 379 Id. 380 United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, Seventh Session of the COP, http://www.unccd.int/cop/cop7/menu.php (last visited Nov. 11, 2005).

48

reaffirmed the potential of the Convention as a tool for meeting the MDGs, including goal 7 (“Ensure Environmental Sustainability”).381

The United Nations General Assembly also proclaimed 2006 the International Year of Deserts and Desertification with the view to raise public awareness of the issue and protect the biological diversity of deserts as well of the traditional knowledge of communities affected by desertification.382

9. The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance was adopted in Iran in 1971 with the goal of providing a framework for national action and international cooperation for the conservation and wise use of wetlands.383 The Convention explicitly recognizes the interdependence of humans and the environment and that wetlands constitute a resource of great economic, cultural, scientific, and recreational value.384

The ninth Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands met in Kampala, Uganda, November 8-15, 2005. The work of the Convention’s Scientific and Technical Review Panel (STRP) leading up to the COP took an ecosystems-based approach to evaluating wetlands, affirming the definitions contained within the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (EA),385 thus ensuring long term maintenance of biodiversity, as well as human well-being and poverty alleviation.

During the COP, the parties recognized the need to maintain wetlands as the primary resource of clean water and all its benefits for humans, thus acknowledging the human right to water. 386 They also acknowledged the importance of preserving wetlands for the preservation of fish stocks as a vital source of income and food for a large portion of the world’s population,387 and of conserving wetlands to avoid natural disasters and to mitigate post-disaster restoration,

381 See United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, Oct. 17-28, 2005, Report of the Conference of the Parties on its Seventh Session, Part Two, at 7, Decision 2/COP.7, ICCD/COP(7)/16/Add.1 (Nov. 25, 2005), available at http://www.unccd.int/cop/officialdocs/cop7/pdf/16add1eng.pdf. 382 See G.A. Res. 58/211, UN Doc. A/Res/58/211 (Feb. 9, 2004), available at http://www.unesco.org/water/news/pdf/N0350718.pdf. 383 Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, http://www.ramsar.org/ (last visited Feb. 27, 2006). 384 Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar Convention), Feb. 2, 1971, available at http://www.ramsar.org/key_conv_e.htm. 385 Ramsar Convention, 9th Meeting of the Parties, Resolution IX.1 Annex A, A Conceptual Framework for the Wise Use of Wetlands and the Maintenance of their Ecological Character, available at http://www.ramsar.org/res/key_res_ix_01_annexa_e.htm (last visited Feb. 27, 2006). 386 Ramsar Convention, 9th Meeting of the Parties, Resolution IX.3, Engagement of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands in Ongoing Multilateral Processes Dealing with Water, at 3, available at http://www.ramsar.org/res/key_res_ix_03_e.htm (last visited Feb. 27, 2006); see also Ramsar Convention, 9th Meeting of the Parties, Resolution IX.1 Annex C, An Integrated Framework for the Ramsar Convention's Water-Related Guidance, at 1.2, available at http://www.ramsar.org/res/key_res_ix_01_annexc_e.htm (last visited Feb. 27, 2006). 387 Ramsar Convention, 9th Meeting of the Parties, Resolution IX.4, The Ramsar Convention and Conservation, Production and Sustainable Use of Fisheries Resources, at para. 1, available at http://www.ramsar.org/res/key_res_ix_04_e.htm (last visited Feb. 27, 2006).

49

specifically citing floods, severe fires in wetlands, and recalling the destruction of the December, 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami.388

Finally, the Ramsar Convention parties’ resolution on “Wetlands and Poverty Reduction” drew a direct link between the conservation of wetlands and the preservation of human rights, in urging parties to reduce poverty with foci on human life and safety, access to resources, ecological sustainability, governance, and economies.389

II. REGIONAL

A. Africa

1. “Fish for All” Summit In August 2005, New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) held the “Fish for

All” Summit in Abuja, Nigeria. The purpose of the “Fish for All” Summit was to improve the sustainability and productivity of Africa’s fisheries management practices.390 An assembly of high-level government leaders from throughout Africa adopted The Abuja Declaration on Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture in Africa (Declaration).391 The Declaration seeks to “[e]mpower fishing and fish farming communities, civil society and stakeholder organizations to effectively participate in policy-making, planning and implementation processes, with particular reference to the equitable allocation of resources, and the rights of the poor and disadvantaged.”392 In certain regions of Africa, fish account for over sixty percent of the populations’ dietary protein.393 The availability of a healthy supply of fish directly affects poor, marginalized fishing communities, implicates the rights to food, health and life, and correlates with the eradication of extreme poverty, the availability of primary education, gender equality and the empowerment of women, and reduced child mortality.394

The Declaration complements the NEPAD Action Plan for the Development of African Fisheries and Aquaculture (Action Plan), which was also developed at the “Fish for All” Summit.395 The Action Plan is designed to increase participation among those most affected by

388 Ramsar Convention, 9th Meeting of the Parties, Resolution IX.9, The Role of the Ramsar Convention in the Prevention and Mitigation of Impacts Associated with Natural Phenomena, Including Those Induced or Exacerbated by Human Activities, at paras. 1, 4, and 7, available at http://www.ramsar.org/res/key_res_ix_09_e.htm (last visited Feb. 27, 2006). 389 See Ramsar Convention, 9th Meeting of the Parties, Resolution IX.14, Wetlands and poverty Reduction, at para. 7, available at http://www.ramsar.org/res/key_res_ix_14_e.htm (last visited Feb. 27, 2006). 390 NEPAD, NEPAD Action Plan for the Development of African Fisheries and Aquaculture, 2, Aug. 23, 2005, http://www.nepad.org/2005/fishforall/action_plan_endorsed_en.pdf. 391 Press Release, Fish for All, African Governments Unanimously Adopt Abuja Declaration on Sustainable Fisheries, Aquaculture (Aug. 25, 2005) http://www.fishforall.org/ffa-summit/English/Abuja%20Declaration%20press%20release.pdf. 392 NEPAD, The Abuja Declaration on Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture in Africa, 2, Aug. 25, 2005, http://www.nepad.org/2005/fishforall/Abuja_Declaration_En.pdf. 393 WorldFish Center, Fish and Food Security in Africa, 2 (2005), http://www.fishforall.org/ffa-summit/English/Fish&FoodSecurity_22_8_lowres.pdf; see also WorldFish Center, Fish: An Issue for Everyone, 4, Nov. 2002, http://www.fishforall.org/background/pdf/fishforall_issue_paper.pdf (explaining that fish is the most reliable source of protein for many in Africa) [hereinafter ISSUE PAPER]. 394 See Fish and Food Security in Africa, supra note 393; see also Issue Paper at 4, supra note 393. 395 See NEPAD Action Plan, supra note 390.

50

fisheries through education, transparency and information sharing.396 By advocating for the procedural rights to participation and information, the Action Plan is aimed at ensuring that the poor and disadvantaged in Africa have a voice in fisheries management. Better fisheries management, and the resulting improvement in the diets and health of poor populations, will advance those populations’ rights to food, work, and health.

B. Asia

1. The Jakarta Declaration On August 3, 2005, representatives from forty countries from the Asian and Pacific region met in Jakarta, Indonesia to attend the Regional Ministerial Meeting on the Millennium Development Goals.397 At the conclusion of this meeting, Asian and Pacific countries published The Jakarta Declaration on Millennium Development Goals in Asia and the Pacific: The Way Forward 2015 (Jakarta Declaration).398 In the Jakarta Declaration, Asian and Pacific countries formally acknowledged the “linkages between poverty and the environment,” and that certain economically-related rights, such as the right to safe drinking water and the right to pursue sustainable economic development, are intrinsically linked to the environment and are threatened by environmental degradation.399

Among its many provisions and resolutions, the Jakarta Declaration stresses “the need to prioritize affordable and environmentally sustainable infrastructure that targets the needs of the poor.”400 Additionally, the Jakarta Declaration emphasizes “the urgent need to promote understanding of the linkages between poverty and the environment and, where appropriate, promote regional cooperation to assist Governments, upon their request, to mainstream environmental dimension in the poverty eradication strategies.”401 The Jakarta Declaration recognizes that “Asia and the Pacific region contain two-thirds of the over one billion world’s poor and therefore, strong political will as well as bold and decisive action are needed for achieving sustainable development and eradicating poverty.”402

C. Central Asia & the Middle East

1. Formation of Arab Forum for Environment and Development (AFED)

The Arab Forum for Environment and Development, an NGO endorsed by UNEP and the League of Arab States, was founded June 17, 2006.403 AFED aims to help members of the Arab 396 Id. at 18. 397 The eight Millennium Development Goals were agreed upon at the United Nations Millennium Summit in September 2000. The goals include, among other things, eradicating poverty and hunger and ensuring environmental sustainability. About 190 countries have signed on to the MDGs. See UN Millennium Development Goals, http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/ (last visited Feb. 27, 2006). 398 Jakarta Declaration on Millennium Development Goals in Asia and the Pacific: The Way Forward 2015, Aug. 5, 2005, available at http://www.undp.or.id/archives/pressrelease/MDG_RMM_Jakarta_Declaration.pdf. 399 Id. sec. 19. One of the UN's Millennium Development Goals is to "[r]educe by half the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water." See UN Millennium Development Goals supra note 397. 400 Jakarta Declaration, sec. 38, supra note 398. 401 Id. sec. 19. 402 Id. sec. 5. 403 See AFED, Why AFED?, available at http://www.afedonline.org/why-afed.htm. (last visited Feb 13, 2007).

51

world promote stronger policies and laws to achieve environmental protection and sustainable development.404 AFED notes that, despite the widespread production and sale of energy that drives the region’s economy, “human development on the Arab scene is poor, natural resources are often exhausted in an unsustainable manner, and the ecological systems undergo a process of continuous degeneration.”405 AFED plans to issue reports on the state of the Arab environment, convene conferences, work closely with the business community towards corporate environmental responsibility, promote scientific research, and support educational and NGO initiatives that promote environmental protection within a sustainable development framework.406

While noting the rise of environmental awareness in the Arab world, the organization wishes to improve government transparency and support citizens’ rights to information and participation in environmental decision-making.407

D. Central and South America

1. Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) The Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) between the United States, Costa

Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua, was scheduled to enter into force on January 1, 2006.408 However, Central American countries have been slow in making the changes to domestic laws that are necessary to implement the agreement.409 Therefore, implementation of the agreement will occur on a rolling basis as the U.S. Trade Representative determines that each country is ready.410

CAFTA was implemented for El Salvador, on March 1, 2006.411 The agreement went into effect for Nicaragua and Honduras on April 1,412 and for Guatemala on July 1, of the same year.413 At the end of 2006, CAFTA had not yet gone into force for the remaining signatories, Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic.

404 See id. 405 See AFED, Background, available at http://www.afedonline.org/background.htm (last visited Feb 13, 2007). 406 See AFED, AFED Course of Action, available at http://www.afedonline.org/course-of-action.htm (last visited Feb 13, 2007). 407 See AFED, Background, available at http://www.afedonline.org/background.htm (last visited Feb 13, 2007). 408 United States Trade Representative (USTR), Statement of USTR Trade Representative Stephen Norton on CAFTA-DR Implementation (Dec. 30, 2005), http://www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Press_Releases/2005/December/Statement_of_USTR_Spokesman_Stephen_Norton_Regarding_CAFTA-DR_Implementation.html; see also Resource Center of the Americas.org, USTR Announces Delay in CAFTA Implementation, http://www.americas.org/item_24153 (last visited Jan. 6, 2006). 409 Statement of USTR Trade Representative, supra note 408. 410 Id. 411 Bush Announces Start of CAFTA Implementation for El Salvador, INSIDE U.S. TRADE 24(4) (March 3, 2006) at 3. 412 Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Statement of USTR Portman Regarding Entry Into Force of the U.S – Central America – Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR) for Hunduras and Nicragua, (March 31, 2006), available at http://www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Press_Releases/2006/March/Statement_of_USTR_Portman_Regarding_Entry_Into_Force_of_the_US_-_Central_America_-_Dominican_Republic_Free_Trade_Agreement_(CA.html 413 Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Statement of USTR Susan C. Schwab Regarding EntryInto Force of the CAFTA-DR for Guatemala, (June 30, 2006), available at

52

The agreement lowers trade barriers between party nations, and many environmental and human rights activists are concerned about its implications. Of particular concern is the lack of effective legislation protecting the rights of workers, the environment, and sovereignty over natural resources and the economy.414 Although Central American environmental standards are widely variable, CAFTA does not require any country to maintain or enforce basic environmental laws and regulations.415 The agreement may thus provide an incentive to foreign investors to seek out and exploit the nation or region with the weakest standards.416

The right to participation has already been violated in numerous countries with the mere passage of this agreement. In El Salvador, where tens of thousands protested the agreement, the Salvadoran legislature adopted CAFTA in the middle of the night with no notice and little debate.417 In the United States, despite public skepticism from both sides of the political spectrum, CAFTA passed the House of Representatives 217-215 in a vote fraught with political pressure tactics.418

Furthermore, CAFTA’s investor-state arbitration provisions, modeled after NAFTA’s Chapter 11, infringe on citizens’ right to participate in government proceedings and could implicate the rights to culture and health if environmental laws are undermined. This arbitration scheme provides investors with a remedy when the actions of a national government are discriminatory, violate international law, or can be considered an expropriation of the company’s investment.419 Under these terms, if a nation’s regulation renders a project financially impracticable, a company might assert that its investment has been expropriated by the government.420 As a result, the provisions could create an incentive for governments to freeze the adoption or enforcement of legislation to protect human or workers’ rights or the environment. Both Canada and Mexico have lost challenges under NAFTA’s Chapter 11 and the United States has had claims made against it totaling over $1 billion.421 Even where governments are able to win these arbitrations, as the United States was with respect to a Canadian company’s challenge to regulations banning a toxic gasoline additive, the multimillion dollar cost of defending such claims422 can be onerous enough to chill future environmental regulations.

http://www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Press_Releases/2006/June/Statement_of_USTR_Susan_C_Schwab_Regarding_Entry_Into_Force_of_the_CAFTA-DR_for_Guatemala.html. 414 Janvieve Williams Comrie, American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) Will Only Intensify Exploitation of Workers, Subordination of the Economies of Central American (a joint statement from African American and Latina Leaders), U.S. NEWSWIRE, July 28, 2005, available at http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=51056. 415 Debora James, Environmental Impacts of CAFTA, GLOBAL EXCHANGE, http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/cafta/Environment.html (last visited Nov. 30, 2005). 416 Sierra Club, U.S. Groups Oppose the Central American Free Trade Agreement: The CAFTA Signed Today Falls Short on the Environment (May 28, 2004), available at http://www.sierraclub.org/trade/cafta/cafta_factsheet.asp. 417 Sherrod Brown, An Unbalanced Trade Policy, WASHINGTON POST, May 31 2005, at A17, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/30/AR2005053000774.html. 418 Sherrod Brown, GOP Arm-Twisters Forced Agreement to Pass, THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH, Aug. 6, 2005, at 12A, available at http://www.house.gov/sherrodbrown/columns/caftacd.htm. 419 Daphne Eviatar, A Toxic Trade-Off, THE WASHINGTON POST, August 14, 2005, at B01. 420 Id. 421 Sierra Club, supra note 416. 422 Methanex Corp. v. United States of America, NAFTA/ICSID, Part V, Para. 8, (Final Award) (Aug. 3, 2005), (Noting that “The total costs of the arbitration amount to approximately US$1.5 million.”)

53

In addition, suits under this provision are not heard by independent judges in the nation where the issue has arisen but instead by a panel of three arbitrators chosen by the parties involved. Thus, citizens affected by issues being decided are not parties to these cases.423

2. Inter-American Court of Human Rights

a. Sarayaku Indigenous Community (Ecuador)424 On June 17, 2005, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued a resolution ratifying the provisional measures it issued on July 6, 2004 regarding oil drilling operations in Sarayaku territory.425 The resolution reiterated that the Ecuadorian government must immediately comply with the court’s orders to protect the life, personal integrity and freedom of movement of the Kichwa people of Sarayaku and also must remove explosives which were placed in the Sarayaku territory to carry out seismic exploration.426 The court’s provisional measures further ordered an investigation of cases of torture and attempted rape that occurred repeatedly throughout 2003.427

The Sarayaku territory is currently surrounded by 467 pits left by Compañia General de Combustibles (CGC). Each pit contains three kilos of dynamite, buried twenty meters underground and with wires and detonators on the surface, originally placed in the territory for seismic exploration.428 CGC alleges it abandoned the explosives due to constant attacks by Sarayaku residents and has accused Sarayaku residents of stealing dynamite and equipment.429 CGC further maintains that the Ecuadorian government has not fulfilled its part of the concession contract, which includes granting CGC the right to explore and drill on 200,000 hectares in Pastaza, because of the delay.430 Government experts recommended that anyone who finds explosives leave the area and inform community leaders.431 The presence of explosives infringes not only on community members’ right to life, but also on their right to culture by restricting the ability of Sarayaku families to hunt, and to visit sacred lakes and rivers to fish without fear.

Government representatives from the Ministries of Government, Energy, Environment, and Foreign Affairs, the Armed Forces, and the Attorney General attended a meeting in Sarayaku 423 Eviatar, supra note 419. 424 This development was included in the issue paper prepared for the Commission’s 61st Session. 425 Inter-American Court Ratifies Measures in Favor of Sarayaku, http://www.sarayacu.com/oil/news050624.html (last visited Oct. 15, 2005). 426 Id; see also Resolución de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos de 6 de Julio de 2004, at 10-11, http://www.corteidh.or.cr/seriee/sarayaku_se_01.doc [hereinafter Court Resolution]. 427 The Advocacy Project, Sarayaku Indians to Confront Ecuador over Oil Exploration at Inter-American Human Rights Hearing, http://www.advocacynet.org/pr_view/pr_38.html; see also The Kichwa Peoples of the Sarayaku Community and its members, Petition 167/03, Report No. 64/04, (Oct. 13, 2004), para. 27, available at http://www.cidh.org/annualrep/2004eng/Ecuador.167.03eng.htm [hereinafter Admissibility Decision]. For example, employees of the Argentine oil company (Compañia General de Combustibles, “CGC”) are said to have threatened two minor girls with rape and beaten approximately 120 Sarayaku community members with sticks and machetes as the community members traveled to a march against the company’s oil project in their territory. 428 Inter-American Court Ratifies Measures in Favor of Sarayaku, http://www.sarayacu.com/oil/news050624.html (last visited Oct. 25 2005); see also Court Resolution, supra note 426, at 10-11; see also Earth Rights, “Explosive” Situation in Sarayaku, Ecuador, http://earthrights.org/news/sarayakuexplosives.shtml (last visited Oct. 25 2005). 429 Diego Garzón, Los indígenas han impedido nuestro trabajo por 10 años, EL COMERCIO, Nov. 18, 2005, available at http://www.elcomercio.com/solo_texto.asp?id_noticia=7433. 430 Id. 431 Id.

54

territory in September 2005 to discuss ways to remedy the situation.432 They agreed that the government will pay for removal of the explosives.433 That the Ecuadorian government visited and consulted the Kichwa peoples shows progress toward better community participation. At the same time, the rights to life and culture will remain under threat until the explosives are safely removed.

b. Yakye Ake Indigenous Community v. Paraguay

On June 17, 2005, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights found that the government of Paraguay had failed to acknowledge and protect an indigenous community’s property claims for its ancestral lands.434 Because the government had failed to allow the community to access its traditional lands from which it had long been dispossessed, the government had violated the community’s rights to livelihood, culture, development, and property. Sixteen people died as a result of this dislocation. The Court found that by denying the Yakye Ake people their livelihood that was linked to the land, the government of Paraguay had violated the fundamental right to life.

The Court ordered Paraguay to allocate to the Yakye Axe their traditional territory, and to provide the group with basic services to allow them to survive, demonstrating how the indigenous group’s fundamental right to life is rooted in a traditional livelihood derived from natural resources.435 The Court specified that in order to preserve “the cultural identify of a democratic and pluralistic society,” nations may sometimes have to circumscribe private ownership of property in favor of ancestral indigenous land rights.436 The Court explicitly acknowledged indigenous peoples’ right to survive as an organized people requires preservation of their cultural identities and livelihood, which is necessarily tied to the right to control their own habitat.437

c. Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay On March 29, 2006, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights found that Paraguay had violated an indigenous community’s right to life by barring its people from their traditional lands.438 The decision clarifies the temporal dimensions of an indigenous group’s right to their ancestral lands to which their rights of life, livelihood, and culture are linked.439

432 Id. 433 Id. 434 International Network for Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, Case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa v. Paraguay, available at http://www.escr-net.org/caselaw/caselaw_show.htm?doc_id=405985, (last visited March 8, 2007). 435 Id. See also [This is currently supra fn 93] UN Econ. & Soc. Council [ECOSOC], UN Comm’n on Human Rights, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, UN DOC E/CN.4/2006/78 (Feb. 16, 2006), available at http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G06/108/67/PDF/G0610867.pdf?OpenElement. Para. 70 at 17. 436 Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, IACtHR Series C 125 (2005) at para. 148. See also, Pasqualucci, Jo. M., The Evolution of International Indigenous Rights in the Inter-American Human Rights System, 6 Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 281, 284 (2006). 437 Id.. 438 Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, Caso Comunidad indígena Sawhoyamaxa vs. Paraguay, Sentencia de 29 de marzo de 2006, available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_146_esp2.doc. 439 Id. at 131-134.

55

The case was first brought before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in 2003 by Tierraviva, an NGO representing two indigenous, Paraguayan communities of Chaco.440 The group’s petitions to the IACHR alleged violations of the American Convention and the Constitution of the Republic of Paraguay. Both petitions alleged that the Republic of Paraguay violated the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community’s right to property, among other rights contained in the American Convention on Human Rights as well as the Constitution of Paraguay, which acknowledges the right of indigenous peoples to develop their lifestyles in their own habitat.441 The petitioners argued that more than 11 years had gone by since the procedures were first set in motion to recover part of the ancestral lands of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, yet that initiative had not been favorably resolved, even though Paraguayan legislation recognizes the right of the indigenous peoples to develop their ways of life in their own habitat, and that the State had not protected the lands claimed. In addition, they argued that the members of the Community were living in sub-human conditions; as a result, several people, including minors, had died due to lack of adequate food and lack of medical care.442

The Inter-American Court’s March, 2006 decision reflected that as long as indigenous people retain a spiritual and material link to their ancestral lands, they have a right to restitution of those lands. This relationship can be seen in “traditional spiritual or ceremonial use or presence; settlements or sporadic cultivation; seasonal or nomadic hunting, fishing or gathering; the use of natural resources connected to their customs; and any other factor characteristic of their culture”443 The decision held that the Sawhoyamaxa had met these conditions, but left it to the member state to determine whether current good faith holders of titles to land have land rights superior to indigenous claimants.444 However, even if the state does find that good faith holders of title have land rights superior to indigenous claimants, it must give indigenous groups other lands of comparable size and quality.445 The Court further stipulated that a nation cannot merely claim that others are currently using the land productively as a basis for not returning land to an indigenous group.446

3. Initiative for the Integration of Regional Infrastructure in Latin America (IIRSA)

In September 2000, the twelve South American Presidents established the Initiative for the Integration of Regional Infrastructure in South America (IIRSA).447 IIRSA attempts to connect the infrastructure of the twelve countries of South America to help stimulate regional economic growth and integration. 448 The project is based on nine “integration axes” or development hubs that transect the continent laterally and horizontally and eight “sector integration processes” including highways, dams, electrical systems, communications and energy 440 Petition 0326/01 and 0322/2001, Inter-Am. C.H.R., at http://www.cidh.org/DefaultE.htm (visited March 10, 2004). 441 Id. 442 Id. 443 Id. at 131. 444 Id. at 136. 445 Id. at 135. 446 Id. at 139. 447 Bank Information Center, IIRSA Update #1: A Report on the South American Integration Initiative, available at http://www.bicusa.org/en/Article.1946.aspx (last visited March 7, 2007). 448 See Suzanna Dennis, The IIRSA: Too Good to be True?, Columbia University Institute of Latin American Studies Newsletter, 3-5, May 2005, http://www.columbia.edu/cu/ilas/publications/newsletter/May%202005.pdf.

56

projects.449 IIRSA is projected to cost US $37 billion. As of the end of 2006, 10 projects were being executed at a cost of over 3.2 billion U.S. dollars.450 The Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), the Andean Development Corporation (CAF), and the Financial Fund for the Development of the River Plata Basin (FONPLATA) are the primary financers and comprise the Technical Coordinating Committee (CCT) for the IIRSA.451 The CCT provides technical and financial support to countries for all IIRSA related topics.452

While there is no doubt that infrastructure development can improve the lives of people in South America, IIRSA presents serious rights concerns such as deforestation, massive migration, and the displacement of indigenous peoples.453 Projects such as the Madeira-Mamore-Beni-Madre de Dios Hydroelectric-Industrial Waterway Complex (Brazil, Bolivia and Peru) could lead to the forced resettlement of thousands of families from their territories and the destruction of millions of hectares of the Amazon rainforest.454 The procedural rights to participate and to obtain information are already being threatened. NGOs have had difficulty accessing information even though the IIRSA Action Plan states that projects are supposed to involve participation and consultation with local communities.455

In June 2005, civil society organizations from countries in South America, Europe and the United States met and drafted the Declaration of Lima to express their apprehension regarding IIRSA.456 The organizations expressed great concern about transparency, protection of areas of cultural and biological diversity, and the lack of economic, social and environmental studies regarding projects that are planned or currently underway.457 To respond to some of these concerns, the organizations proposed a set of actions, including the sharing and dissemination of information and capacity building to promote informed intervention by the indigenous and non-indigenous peoples of South American civil society.458

449 Id. at 3. 450See IIRSA, Summary of the Projects in Execution corresponding to the Implementation Agenda Based on Consensus 2005-2010, available at http://www.iirsa.org/BancoConocimiento/A/aic_proyectos_en_ejecucion/aic_proyectos_en_ejecucion_ENG.asp?CodIdioma=ENG (last visited Feb. 23, 2007). 451 Id. at 3-4; see also IIRSA, How is it Organized, http://www.iirsa.org/BancoConocimiento/F/fm_como_esta_organizada/fm_como_esta_organizada_ENG.asp?CodIdioma=ENG. 452 IIRSA, supra note 451. 453 Suzanna Dennis, supra note 448, at 3; see also Bank Information Center, IISRA Homepage, http://www.bicusa.org/bicusa/issues/initiative_for_integration_of_regional_infrastructure_in_south_america_iirsa/index.php. 454 Bank Information Center, Declaration of Lima, http://www.bicusa.org/bicusa/issues/FinalversionDeclaration%20of%20Lima%20English.pdf [hereinafter Declaration of Lima]. 455 Technical Coordinating Committee (CCT), Plan for Regional Infrastructure Integration in South America, Dec. 4-5, 2000, at 4, available at http://iirsa.mediawebsa.com/BancoMedios/Documentos%20PDF/plan%20de%20accion%20montevideo%20final%20ingles.pdf; Dennis, supra note 453, at 4. 456 Declaration of Lima, supra note 454. 457 See id. 458 Id.

57

The IDB, one member of the CCT, is currently updating its environmental policies. The IDB has a new “Environment and Safeguards Compliance Policy” published in March 2006,459 and a new “Operational Policy on Indigenous Peoples and Strategy for Indigenous Development,” published in July 2006, which seeks the “strengthening of indigenous peoples, harmony with their environment, sound management of territories and natural resources, the generation and exercise of authority, and respect for indigenous peoples in accordance with their own worldview and governance.”460 Nonetheless, it remains to be seen if IIRSA projects will be conducted with adequate environmental and social planning. 461

4. Andean Free Trade Agreement On April 12, 2006, the U.S. and Peru signed a bilateral free trade agreement.462 Along with an agreement between the U.S. and Colombia, signed November 22, 2006,463 this was s strong step towards establishing the U.S.-Andean Free Trade Agreement (AFTA).464 The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) asserts that the agreement will eliminate tariffs and other barriers to trade in goods and services, that it will expand trade between the United States and Peru, and that increased access to U.S. markets will bring Peru significant opportunities for economic growth and development.465

AFTA threatens numerous environmental rights, including the rights to a healthy environment and to culture. The United States acknowledges that increased economic development has many negative environmental impacts, including deforestation, a loss of migratory bird habitat, an increase in illegal trade of endangered species, desertification, and transboundary air and water pollution.466 Indigenous organizations have expressed opposition to AFTA if their concerns are not taken into account in the trade agreement.467

Additionally, the right to work could be heavily impacted by the effects of U.S. agricultural subsidies on markets in Andean countries that will not be able to compete with lower

459 IDB, Environment and Safeguards Compliance Policy (March, 2006), available at http://www.iadb.org/sds/doc/ENV-Environment_and_Safeguards_Compliance_P.pdf. 460 IDB, Operational Policy on Indigenous Peoples and Strategy for Indigenous Development (July, 2006), available at http://idbdocs.iadb.org/wsdocs/getdocument.aspx?docnum=776078, at 5. 461 The IDB’s current policies from 1979 are on the Inter-American Development Bank website, http://www.iadb.org/exr/pic/VII/OP_703.cfm?language=English (last visited Feb. 27, 2006). The new policies are not yet complete but can be viewed at http://www.iadb.org/sds/env/site_5512_e.htm (last visited Feb. 27, 2006). 462 U.S.Peru Sign FTA, Portman Hopes for Passage Before Summer Recess, INSIDE U.S. TRADE 24(15), April 14, 2006, at 1. 463 Deputy USTR Signals Possible Labor Steps to Pass Colombia FTA, INSIDE U.S. TRADE 24(47), Nov. 24, 2006 at 1,16-17. The agreement’s prospects for approval in the U.S. Congress were dimmed both because Democrats, newly elected to be the majority party in Congress, protested lack of guarantees for workers’ rights and human rights more broadly, including Colombia’s history of anti-union violence. Furthermore, Democrats protested that President Bush had not adequately consulted with Congress before signing the agreement. 464 Press Release, USTR, United States and Peru Conclude Free Trade Agreement (Dec. 7, 2005), http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Document_Library/Press_Releases/2005/December/asset_upload_file744_8518.pdf. 465 Id. 466 See USTR, Interim Environmental Review, U.S. Andean Free Trade Agreement at 5, 21-24, 33-34, Feb. 2005, available at http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/Andean_FTA/asset_upload_file27_7305.pdf. 467 Todd Tucker & Daniel McCarthy, The U.S. Andean Free Trade Agreement Chokes Along, GLOBAL POLICY FORUM, http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/trade/2004/1102afta.htm (last visited Oct. 26, 2005).

58

U.S. prices.468 While Andean countries proposed that elimination of employment and workplace discrimination be included on the list of “internationally recognized labor rights,” the United States has reportedly not accepted the proposal, jeopardizing the right to work.469 Further, the right to health may also be violated as patent protection increases on pharmaceutical products and millions of people in the Andean countries are thus subjected to new, unaffordable prices for essential drugs.470 The Andean Free Trade Agreement, if carried out, threatens a broad array of environmental and human rights.

E. Europe

1. European Court of Human Rights

a. Fadeyeva v. Russia On June 9, 2005 the European Court of Human Rights issued a judgment in the case of

Fadeyeva v. Russia.471 The European Court unanimously held that the Russian government’s failure to address pollution or resettle community members within a resettlement buffer zone around a state-owned iron smelter constituted a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention (right to respect for private and family life).472

Nadezhda Mikhai Fadeyeva, a Russian national, lives in Cherepovets, Russia, near the Severstal steel plant. Built during the Soviet era, the Severstal plant was owned by the Ministry of Black Metallurgy of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR) until becoming privatized and acquired by Severstal PLC in 1993.473 The plant is the largest iron smelter in Russia and employs approximately 60,000 people.474

In 1965, authorities established a buffer zone around the area most affected by the plant’s pollution called the “sanitary security zone” in order to separate the plant from the town’s residential areas.475 Furthermore, a September, 1974 Decree of the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR obliged the Ministry of Black Metallurgy to resettle the inhabitants of certain districts by

468 For example, Peru’s internationally competitive sugar industry fears that the national market will be flooded by cheap, highly subsidized high fructose corn syrup from the U.S. Id. 469 Human Rights Watch, United States, Accept Andean Proposals to Add Non-Discrimination Provision to U.S.-Andean Free Trade Agreement (Sept. 6, 2005), http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/09/06/usint11670.htm. Workplace and employment discrimination are serious problems in the Andean region. For example, the U.S. Department of State found in its 2004 Country Reports on Human Rights that workplace and employment discrimination are serious problems in the Andean region. The report found that in Colombia, “[w]omen faced hiring discrimination, were disproportionately affected by unemployment, and had salaries that were generally incompatible with their education and experience.” In Ecuador, “pay discrimination against women was common” and “women received 65 percent of the pay received by men for equal work.” In Peru, “racial and sexual discrimination in employment advertisements . . . continued to occur.” 470 UN Expert Concerned US-Peru Free Trade Accord Could Deprive Poor of Medicine (July 13, 2005), http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=15007&Cr=trade&Crl=development. 471 Fadeyeva v. Russia, Eur. Ct. H.R. app. no. 55723/00 (June 9, 2005), available at http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/EN/Header/Case-law/HUDOC/HUDOC+DATABASE (follow link to HUDOC and search for Case Title: Fadeyeva). 472 Id. 473 Id.; see also Press Release, European Court of Human Rights, Chamber Judgment – Fadeyeva v. Russia (June 9, 2005), http://press.coe.int/cp/2005/313a(2005).htm (last visited Oct. 19, 2005). 474 Fadeyeva v. Russia, supra note 471, at 5. 475 Id.

59

1977.476 However, this was not done, and thousands of people continued to live within the buffer zone.477 Fadeyeva and her family have lived in the buffer zone since 1982 in a flat provided by the plant.478

In 1995, Fadeyeva and others living within the zone brought an action in the Cherepovets Town Court seeking resettlement outside the security zone into an environmentally safe area.479 In response, the court found that the applicant had the right to be resettled at the local authority’s expense under domestic law, but only required local authorities to place Fadeyeva on a “priority waiting list” for new accommodation and made her resettlement conditional on the availability of funds. 480

After several unsuccessful proceedings at local and regional tribunals, Fadeyeva filed an application in December of 1999 with the European Court of Human Rights.481 The European Court concluded that the state had failed to strike a fair balance between the interests of the community and the applicant’s effective enjoyment of her right to respect for her home and her private life.482 Ms. Fadeyeva was awarded €6,000 in non-pecuniary damages, costs, and attorneys fees, but was denied the cost of moving outside the sanitary security zone.483 The ruling set a significant precedent as one of the first environmental rights cases in the European Court, potentially opening the door to remediation for those negatively impacted by industrial pollution.484

b. Okyay and Others v. Turkey An international panel of seven judges at the European Court of Human Rights ruled

unanimously that the Turkish government violated the European Convention on Human Rights by refusing to comply with national court decisions ordering the closure of three “highly polluting” power stations.485 The court recognized that the Turkish government was denying its citizens’ procedural rights in the judicial system and was disregarding its citizens’ right to participate in government decision making.486

The power stations are operated by the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources and the public utility company Türkiye Elektrik Kurumu (“TEAŞ”).487 They are fueled by low-grade coal, and are located near internationally popular Aegean beach resorts around the city of

476 Id. 477 Chamber Judgment – Fadeyeva v. Russia, supra note 473. 478 Id. 479 Id. 480 Id. 481 See European Court of Human Rights, supra note 473. 482 Id. 483 Fadeyeva v. Russia, supra note 471. 484 Jeremy Page, Legal victory gives hope to victims of Russia's smokestacks, TIMES ONLINE, June 10, 2005, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-3-1648257-3,00.html. 485 Okyay and Others v. Turkey, Eur. Ct. H.R. app. no. 36220/97 (July 12, 2005), available at http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/EN/Header/Case-law/HUDOC/HUDOC+DATABASE (follow link to HUDOC and search for Case Title: Okyay); see also Press Release, European Court of Human Rights, Chamber Judgment – Okyay and Others (July 12, 2005), available at http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Press/2005/July/ChamberjudgmentOkyay&othersvTurkey120705I.htm. 486 Okyay and Others v. Turkey, supra note 485. 487 Id.

60

Mugla.488 Ten Turkish nationals, who live approximately 250 kilometers from the site of the power stations, brought repeated actions in the Aydın Administrative Court requesting the suspension of the power stations’ activities because of irreparable harm to nature and to public health.

An expert report commissioned by the administrative court found that the power stations emitted considerable amounts of nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide and constituted a danger across a 25-30 kilometer diameter zone.489 On the basis of these findings, the court noted that the stations’ pollution caused harm to human health and the environment, and that the continued operation of the power plants could do irreparable damage to members of the public.490 Consequently, the court enjoined the plants’ operation.491 However, despite the injunction, the Council of Ministers, composed of the Prime Minister and other cabinet members, refused to shut down the three thermal-power stations.492 The European Court of Human Rights subsequently held that the Council of Ministers’ failure to comply with the administrative court’s order to suspend the activities of the power stations violated Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, that guarantees the right to a fair trial.493

2. European Commission

a. Actions Against Member States

In 2005 and 2006 the European Commission issued warnings and took legal action against several states for non-compliance with European Union environmental laws under Article 226 of the treaty establishing the European Community.

i. Italy In July 2005 the European Commission decided to pursue infringement proceedings against Italy in seventeen cases involving breaches of EU environment law.494 The proceedings relate to Italy’s alleged failure to ensure that the disposal and recovery of waste, including automotive waste, does not present a risk to health, water, air, soil, or the environment.495 The Commission also sanctioned Italy for its failure to comply with the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive.496 The Commission issued a final warning due to Italy’s failure to change its national and regional legislation regarding Environmental Impact Assessments and its failure 488 Id. 489 Id. 490 Id. 491 Id. Additionally, farmers living in the vicinity of one of the thermal-power stations also brought similar proceedings before the Yatağan Magistrates’ Court, alleging that the quality and quantity of their olive and tobacco production had been adversely affected by the poisonous gas and ash emitted by the power station and that they had suffered pecuniary damage. The court found that the hazardous gas emitted by the power station had caused considerable damage to cultivation in the region. See id. 492 Chamber Judgment – Okyay and Others, supra note 485. 493 See id. 494 See Press Release, European Comm’n, Italy: Commission Takes Action Over Breaches of Environmental Law (July 26, 2005), http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/05/1007&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en. 495 Id. 496 See id.

61

to submit an open cast mine project to the Environmental Impact Assessment process.497 The Commission also issued a final warning asking Italy to measure air pollution and inform the public about that pollution, pursuant to EU air quality legislation.498

Later in 2005, the Commission pursued legal action against Italy for nine violations of waste management rules designed to protect human and environmental health.499 Specifically, the Commission alleges that Italy has failed to adopt waste management plans for several regions; has defined “waste” too narrowly; has impermissibly defined new landfills as pre-existing ones; has permitted illegal landfills to continue to operate, thus jeopardizing human health through contamination of air, water and soil; and has failed to clean up previously identified unsafe landfills.500 Furthermore, the Commission notes that Italy has failed to respond to requests for information from citizens bringing complaints on a variety of issues including waste incineration, GMOs, and hydroelectric power.501

In 2006, the European Commission pursued infringement proceedings against Italy in four cases of breaches of EU environmental law.502 The first three proceedings address Italy’s failure to ensure that waste dumps, or “landfills,” meet certain rules to protect human health and the environment, Italy’s failure to comply with a ruling by the ECJ relating to various waste sites, and Italy’s failure to comply with rules on the definition of scrap metal waste, other waste used in the steel and metallurgical industry and high-quality 'refuse-derived fuel' (fuel made from waste).503 The final proceeding deals with Italy’s failure to consider whether an environmental impact assessment (EIA) is needed for two new sections of road being built.504

ii. Greece In 2005, the European Commission pursued multiple infringement proceedings against Greece regarding breaches of EU environment law.505 The alleged breaches involve the dangers posed by genetically modified organisms (GMOs), laws regarding air, water and noise pollution, ozone-depletion, wastewater regulation, and noise pollution legislation.506 The Commission

497 See id. 498 See id. 499 See Press Release, European Comm’n, Environment: Commission to pursue nine infringement cases against Italy over inadequate waste management (Dec. 20, 2005), available at http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/05/1645&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en. 500 See id. 501 See Press Release, European Comm’n, Italy: Commission takes legal action over 11 breaches of environmental law (Oct. 18, 2005), available at http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/05/1303&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en. 502 See Press Release, European Comm’n, Italy: Commission Takes Action Over Continuing Breaches of Environmental Law (July 3, 2006), available at http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/908&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en. 503 See id. 504 See id. 505 See Press Release, European Comm’n, Greece: Commission Takes Action Over Breaches of Environmental Law (July 15, 2005), available at http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/05/954&format=html&aged=o&language=EN&gui Language=en. 506 See id.

62

pursued additional legal measures against Greece for inadequate waste management.507 As of May 2005, Greece hosted 1,458 illegal or uncontrolled waste dumps. The Commission was pursuing legal action against Greece for its failure to regulate two waste dumps on Crete that posed risks to human health through uncontrolled burning and toxic emissions, landslide risks, and uncontrolled gas and liquid emissions.508 Furthermore, the Commission alleged that Greece continuously violates the Hazardous Waste Directive, often relying on “temporary” waste sites that do not adequately protect human or environmental health. 509

In 2006, the Commission also took Greece to the European Court of Justice for alleged failure to treat urban waste water properly, and for not complying with a previous European Court of Justice ruling on improper urban waste water processing.510 The Commission noted that such failures jeopardize both human health and the health of the marine environment.511

iii. United Kingdom In July 2005 the European Commission decided to pursue eight infringement proceedings against the United Kingdom regarding breaches of EU environmental law.512 The United Kingdom has received a first written warning due to its failure to comply with a judgment of the European Court of Justice regarding the safe management of hazardous waste.513 The UK will also be referred to the Court in two wastewater treatment cases and has been sent a final warning before a possible Court referral regarding disposal of electronics and electrical equipment.514 The Commission has also sent the UK final warnings in cases regarding EU laws on noise and ozone depletion.515

In 2006, the Commission opted to pursue legal proceedings against the UK for multiple breaches of regulations regarding treatment and collection of urban waste water.516 At four 507 See Press Release, European Comm’n, Environment: Commission to pursue legal action against Greece over infringements (Dec 20, 2005), available at http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/05/1644&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en. 508 See id. 509 See id. 510 See Press Release, European Comm’n, Commission takes Greece to Court over lack of waste water treatment (June 29, 2006), available at http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/878&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en.; See Press Release, European Comm’n, Greece: Commission warns Greece to comply with Court rulings in the field of the environment. (April 7, 2006), available at http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/479&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en. 511 See id. 512 See Press Release, European Comm’n, United Kingdom: European Commission Takes Action Over Breaches of Environmental Law (July 15, 2005), available at http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/05/953&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en. 513 See id. 514 See id. 515 See id.; the issue of ozone in the United Kingdom was included in the issue paper prepared for the Commission’s 61st session. 516 See Press Release, European Comm’n, United Kingdom: Commission to continue legal action for waste water pollution (April 4,2006), available at http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/444&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en.

63

different locations, the UK allegedly failed to increase the capacity to collect and treat waste water, resulting in direct discharges of millions of cubic meters into rivers or seas, risking large scale fish kills and potentially harming human health through the release of harmful viruses and bacteria into public waters.517

iv. France In 2005, the European Commission sent France three warnings for not respecting judgments handed down by the European Court of Justice on issues of genetically modified micro-organisms (GMMs), genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and waste management.518 However, the Commission was able to close several other cases after France sent the necessary plans and national legislation to the Commission.519 These were in response to written warnings for failure to comply with European Court of Justice judgments regarding end-of-life vehicle management plans and waste management plans.520

In 2006, the Commission proposed to levy fines (168,000 Euro/day) against France for its failure to comply with the European Court of Justice’s judgment that France must implement adequate biotechnology legislation.521 Specifically, France has failed to implement emergency protections for its citizens against possible accidental release of genetically modified bacteria or viruses. Furthermore, France has failed to ensure that its citizens are informed about safety procedures in the event of an accidental release, thus violating their right to information and possibly rights to life and health.522

v. Germany

On July 15, 2005 the European Commission sent Germany its first written warning for failure to comply with a judgment by the European Court of Justice. The Court’s judgment cited Germany for failure to incorporate an EU law on genetically modified organisms (GMO) into its national laws.523 Later in the year, the Commission began legal proceedings against Germany for failing to comply with the EU’s Nitrates Directive, which seeks to prevent nitrates from animal waste and agricultural fertilizers from causing algal blooms and polluting drinking water.524

517 See id. 518 See Press Release, European Comm’n, France: Commission Takes Further Action in Ten Environmental Infringement Cases (July 15, 2005), available at http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/05/950&format=HTML&aged=0&languag=EN&guiLanguage=en. 519 Id. 520 See id. 521 See Press Release, European Comm’n, Commission proposes fines against France for failure to adopt biotechnology legislation (Feb. 1, 2006), available at http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/109&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en. 522 See id. 523 See Press Release, European Comm’n, Environmental Infringements: Commission Takes Legal Action Against Germany and Spain (July 15, 2005), available at http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/05/947&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&Language=en. 524 See Press Release, European Comm’n, Environment: Commission pursues infringement actions against Germany (Dec. 20, 2005), available at

64

vi. Spain

In 2006, the European Commission referred Spain to the European Court of Justice for its failure to adequately curb the use of ozone-depleting substances.525 The Commission has also warned Spain about its failure to comply with a European Court of Justice order to restore a landfill that had impermissibly been sited in a protected nature reserve.526 The Commission also sent Spain warnings for its failure to conduct environmental impact assessments (EIA) on two projects, and for impermissibly splitting a major project (requiring an EIA) into 19 smaller projects, for which Spain performed no EIA. The Commission noted that EIAs are essential to avoid environmental damage, and to ensure the fundamental right to public consultation in projects that might potentially impair environmental or human health.527

vii. Portugal:

In 2006, the European Commission alleged that Portugal committed three breaches of EU environmental law.528 The Commission accused Portugal of inadequately reporting and treating industrial waste and urban waste water, thus posing serious risks to human health and the environment. The Commission also alleged impermissible development inside a protected nature reserve on the Canary Islands.529

viii. Environmental Impact Assessment Proceedings Against 14 Member States

The European Commission initiated infringement procedures against 14 Member States over violations of an EU law on the EIAs of projects. This directive aims to ensure that the environmental effects of a wide range of infrastructural, industrial, mineral extraction and other projects are properly examined before any works are undertaken. The law also gives important participation rights to citizens. The Commission has identified gaps and deficiencies in the 14 Member States' laws and has therefore decided to send first written warnings to ensure that they comply with all the provisions of the Directive.530 The states targeted in the proceedings are

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/05/1640&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en. 525 See Press Release, Euroepean Comm’n, Spain: Commission continues legal action for breaches of environmental law (April 4, 2006), available at http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/445&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en. 526 See id. 527 See Id. 528 See Press Release, European Comm’n, Portugal: Commission sends final warnings over environmental infringements (June 30, 2006), available at http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/902&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en. 529 See Id. 530 See Press Release, European Comm’n, Environmental impact assessment: Commission takes legal action to improve implementation in 10 Member State (July 3, 2006), available at http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/905&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en; See also Press Release, European Comm’n, Environmental impact assessment: Commissino to take legal action to improve implementation in Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, and Slovenia (Oct. 13, 2006), available at http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/1397&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en.

65

Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, and Slovenia.531

ix. Legal Action against seven member states over Landfill Directive

The European Commission began legal proceedings against Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Portugal for failing to enact national legislation to fulfill the Commission’s Directive on landfill waste.532 The Directive specifically requires that member nations operate their landfills so that they do not harm human health or the environment. Member states must implement strategies to reduce water, soil, and air pollution; to reduce emissions of methane; and to reduce the amount of biodegradable waste to 35% of 1995 levels.533

b. European Governments can bring Criminal Charges for Pollution Violations

On September 13, 2005 the European Court of Justice increased the potency of the European Commission’s pollution control laws by holding that European governments have the authority to criminally prosecute companies that violate EU environmental legislation.534

In 2001, the European Commission filed suit against every EU member state over failure to include criminal sanctions against industrial polluters into their national legislation, as required by an anti-pollution bill drafted by the Commission.535 Pollution adversely affects the rights to health, water, and life of individuals who do not necessarily participate in or benefit from pollution-causing activities. The Court’s ruling affirmed the Commission’s stance that pollution control is a cross-border issue and one of the EU’s central objectives, and strengthened protections of EU residents’ right to a healthy environment. 536

F. Island Nations

1. Antarctica / Southern Ocean – Treaty on Illegal Fishing

A treaty aimed at curbing illegal fishing in the Antarctic territorial waters of Australia and the French Antarctic territories came into force on February 1, 2005.537 The Treaty Between

531 See id. 532 See Press Release, European Comm’n, Environment: Commission starts legal action against seven Member States over Landfill Directive (Dec. 12, 2006), available at http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/1764&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en. 533 See id. 534 See Robert Wielaard, Court Rules EU can Demand Criminal Prosecution of Polluters, ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS NETWORK, Sept. 14, 2005, http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=8790. 535 See id. 536 See id. 537 Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition, What We Do: Protecting the Southern Ocean from Unsustainable Fishing, http://www.asoc.org/what_sof.htm (last visited March 14, 2006); see also Treaty Between the Government of Australia and the Government of French Republic on Cooperation in Maritime Areas Adjacent to the French Southern and Antarctic Territories (TAAF), Heard Island and the McDonald Islands, Austl.-Fr., Nov. 24, 2003, 2005 ATS 6, available at http://www.asoc.org/Documents/Australia-FranceTreaty2005.pdf (last visited March 14, 2006).

66

the Government of Australia and the Government of the French Republic on Cooperation in Maritime Areas Adjacent to the French Southern and Antarctic Territories (TAAF), Heard Island and the McDonald Islands allows for the cooperative management of maritime areas adjacent to and within each party’s territorial waters. It attempts to ensure proper surveillance of fishing in the area of cooperation, obligating each party to support the pursuit of illegal fishing vessels.538

Many people throughout New Zealand, Australia and the Pacific Islands, and other parts of the world depend upon a healthy and robust fishery in the Southern Ocean.539 The harvests support the livelihoods and culture of nearby groups and provide sustenance for countless communities. Nations from other parts of the world also rely on the rich marine life in the Southern Ocean to provide life-sustaining protein and to boost their economies. Industrial and illegal fishing vessels put pressure on fisheries like the Patagonian toothfish fishery (known in the United States as the Chilean Sea Bass).540 The decline of this and other stocks impacts the rights to food, culture and livelihood of people throughout the region.

2. Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate On July 28, 2005, Australia formed the new Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean

Development and Climate with China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and the United States.541 The partnership brings together key countries in the region to address the challenges of climate change, energy security, and air pollution.542 The partnership draws attention to the global urgency of development and poverty eradication and focuses on clean development and clean technologies to address these problems.543

According to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), climate change is predicted to result in increased drought for Australia, more extreme weather events, more frequent bushfires, and “natural hazards.”544 Despite the steps taken in signing on to this partnership, Australia remains aligned with the United States in its refusal to ratify the more stringent Kyoto Protocol.

3. South Pacific Regional Environment Programme On July 21, 2005 the United States ratified the agreement establishing the South Pacific

Regional Education Programme (SPREP), now known as the Pacific Regional Environment 538 Id. 539 A decision by the International Hydrographic Organization in the spring of 2000 delimited a fifth world ocean - the Southern Ocean - from the southern portions of the Atlantic Ocean, Indian Ocean, and Pacific Ocean. The Southern Ocean extends from the coast of Antarctica north to 60 degrees south latitude, which coincides with the Antarctic Treaty Limit. See U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, World Factbook, (last updated Jan. 10, 2006), http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/oo.html. 540 See Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition, supra note 537. 541 Press Release, Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Australia Joins New Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, (July 28, 2005), available at http://www.deh.gov.au/minister/env/2005/mr28jul205.html. 542 Id. 543 Vision Statement on of Australia, China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and the United States of America for a new Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (July 28, 2005), http://www.deh.gov.au/minister/env/2005/mr28jul205.html (last visited March 14, 2006). 544 See CSIRO, Marine and Atmospheric Research, Climate Change Projections for Australia 2001, available at http://www.cmar.csiro.au/e-print/open/projections2001.pdf (last visited March 14, 2006); see also Environment Victoria, Climate Change and Hazelwood Power Station, http://www.envict.org.au/inform.php?menu=5&submenu=722&item=800 (last visited March 14, 2006).

67

Programme,545 and became a member of SPREP thirty days later.546 The agreement establishing SPREP was signed on June 16, 1993 by eleven states and went into force on August 31, 1995.547

SPREP is now the Pacific region’s major independent intergovernmental organization, promoting cooperation throughout the region among SPREP’s members. Those members are twenty-one island countries and four countries with significant interests in the region, including the United States. SPREP provides support to protect and improve the Pacific environment, and to ensure sustainable development for present and future Pacific islanders.548 SPREP’s mandate specifically recognizes the need to protect and improve the environment to promote sustainable development, thereby acknowledging the right to development. SPREP also safeguards the right to work for those who depend on these resources for their livelihoods.549 The formal ratification of SPREP by the United States shows a strong commitment to protecting and supporting sustainable development in the region by a major international power, reinforcing the need to preserve the environment and resources for the local residents.

G. North America

1. North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC)

The North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), known as the “environmental side agreement” to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), established the North American Commission on Environmental Cooperation (NACEC) comprising a Council, Secretariat, and Joint Public Advisory Committee.550 The NAAEC allows for citizen submissions to the NACEC for review of cases in which the Government of Canada, Mexico or the United States fails to “effectively enforce its environmental laws.”551 Many of these submissions seek review of situations where the alleged failure to enforce environmental laws directly impacts human rights.552

The NACEC is funded equally by the Governments of Canada, Mexico and the United States. That funding was threatened in 2005 when Mexican President Vicente Fox called for a thirty-two percent reduction of Mexico’s Environment Secretariat’s (SEMARNAT) allocated funding in his 2006 budget proposal. The cut would have seriously impaired SEMARNAT’s domestic effectiveness, as well as the effectiveness of the NACEC, as Mexican authorities projected a 60% cut in Mexico’s contribution to the NACEC’s budget and requested that the

545 Press Release, Pacific Regional Environment Programme, SPREP Name Change (Nov. 25, 2004), http://www.sprep.org.ws/article/news_detail.asp?id=202. 546 See Press Release, Pacific Regional Environment Programme, U.S. Joins the SPREP Agreement (July 21, 2005), http://www.sprep.org.ws/article/news_list.asp. 547 Id. 548 Id. 549 Id. 550 North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), Can.-Mex.-U.S., Sept. 8 – 14, 1993; entered into force January 1, 1994, TIAS, U.S. Treaties in Force at 374, at art. 8, available at http://www.cec.org/pubs_info_resources/law_treat_agree/naaec/index.cfm. 551 Id. at arts. 14-15. 552 See North American Commission on Environmental Cooperation (NACEC), Current Status of Filed Submissions, http://www.cec.org/citizen/status/ (last visited March 14, 2006).

68

U.S. and Canada make matching funding cuts.553 Fortunately, President Fox later pledged to uphold Mexico’s fiscal commitment to the NACEC, and Mexico will fully fund the regional commission for the 2005-2006 budget year.

In 2005 and 2006, NACEC received numerous citizen submissions on enforcement matters, discussed below.

a. Coronado Islands

A coalition of environmental organizations and individuals filed a submission with the NACEC in March 2005, challenging Mexico’s SEMARNAT for allowing the construction of a ChevronTexaco natural gas re-gasification terminal off the shore of Baja California, near the Coronado Islands.554 The group claimed that the Mexican government approved the company’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which, they assert, failed to take into account the threats to biodiversity and the likelihood of explosion. The submission also asserts that the Mexican government has failed to enforce the General Law of Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection, as well as the General Wildlife Law, threatening the health, food supply and economy of local people. 555

The construction of the terminal is projected to cause substantial losses in the local small-scale fishing industry due to contamination of seawater, thus impacting the rights to work and to food.556 Liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals of the type proposed to be installed near Coronado are also susceptible to accidental explosions, posing a danger to human life. An explosion would also threaten several species of threatened and endangered animals upon which the adjacent communities rely for food and livelihood.

The citizen submission was revised in June 2005, and accepted on September 30, 2005 by the NACEC Secretariat.557 In January 2006, the Mexican government filed a written response, asserting that the submitters considered only the EIS submitted by the company, and did not take into account measures that the Mexican government imposed on the project.558 According to Mexico, the environmental authority approving the project thoroughly assessed each issue identified by the Submitters. 559 They asserted further that the citizen submission should proceed no further.560 In January 2007, the CEC Secretariat recommended preparation of a factual record for the case.561

553 Campaign Counters Attack on Environmental Cooperation, EL UNIVERSAL (September 18, 2005), available at http://www2.eluniversal.com.mx/pls/impreso/web_columnas_sup.detalle?var=25116; see also U.S. State Department, U.S., Mexico, Canada Affirm Mutual Environmental Protection, http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/Archive/2005/Jun/24-593262.html (last visited March 14, 2006). 554See NACEC, Citizen Submissions on Enforcement Matters, http://www.cec.org/citizen/submissions/details/index.cfm?varlan=english&ID=107, (last visited March 14, 2006). 555Id. 556Id. 557See NACEC, Coronado Islands, http://www.cec.org/citizen/submissions/details/index.cfm?varlan=english&ID=107, (last visited March 14, 2006). 558See NACEC, Response from the Party under Article 14(3) authored by Mexico (Jan. 10, 2006), available at http://www.cec.org/files/pdf/sem/05-2-RSP_es.pdf . 559Id. 560Id. 561 See NACEC, CEC Secretariat Recommends Factual Record for Coronado Islands (Jan. 25, 2007), available at http://www.cec.org/news/details/index.cfm?varlan=english&ID=2744.

69

b. Environmental Pollution in Hermosillo II

This submission, filed in August of 2005, asserts that Mexican federal, state and local agencies failed to take action to prevent, monitor and control air pollution in Hermosillo in the state of Sonora. 562 According to the submission, this failure violated a number of laws including the Mexican Constitution and Mexico’s General Law of Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection.563 In its February 2006 response, Mexico maintained that the submission should have been dismissed originally, as it did not meet some of the requirements of Article 14 of the NAAEC.564 Mexico went on to cite processes that it claims do prevent, monitor and control the pollution.565 The NACEC is considering whether to recommend the development of a factual record.

c. Hacienda El Hospital This submission, filed in July, 2006, alleges that the Mexican Federal Attorney General for Environmental Protection failed to enforce Mexican environmental law in failing to act upon learning of results of sampling from the dismantling of a pigment manufacturing plant, operated by BASF.566 The complaint alleges that BASF allowed community residents to take contaminated soil for their own use, and that the Mexican Environmental Protection Agency has not overseen a successful clean-up at the site.567 The Secretariat is determining whether to seek a factual record to pursue the case further.568

III. DOMESTIC

A. Courts

1. Nigeria In 2005, communities in the Niger Delta filed suit in Nigeria against the Nigerian

government, the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation and the Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria to stop gas flaring in the region.569 On November 14, 2005, the High Court of Nigeria in Benin City held that gas flaring in the Iwerekan community of Delta State was a “gross violation of [the] fundamental right to life (including healthy environment) and dignity of [the] human person as enshrined in the Constitution” of Nigeria.570 Additionally, the court held 562See NACEC, Environmental Pollution in Hermosillo II, http://www.cec.org/citizen/submissions/details/index.cfm?varlan=english&ID=108,(last visited March 1, 2007). 563Id. 564Id. 565 Id. 566 See NACEC, Ex Hacienda El Hospital II (July 17, 2007), available at http://www.cec.org/citizen/submissions/details/index.cfm?varlan=english&ID=112, and Ex Hacienda El Hospital III (Sept. 22, 2006), available at http://www.cec.org/citizen/submissions/details/index.cfm?varlan=english&ID=113. 567 See NACEC, Ex Hacienda El Hospital II. 568 See NACEC, Ex Hacienda El Hospital III. 569 Communities Sue Shell to Stop Nigerian Gas Flaring, FRIENDS OF THE EARTH, June 20, 2005, http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/communities_sue_shell_to_s_20062005.html [hereinafter Communities Sue]. See e.g., Legal Action to Stop Nigeria Gas Flaring, CLIMATE JUSTICE PROGRAMME, June 20, 2005, http://www.climatelaw.org/media/gas.flaring.suit/#release. Gas flaring occurs when unwanted natural gas that comes to the surface during oil drilling operations is burned off. 570 Jonah Gbemre v. Shell Petroleum Dev. Co. et. al., Suit No: FHC/B/CS/53/05 2 (Nov. 14, 2005), http://www.climatelaw.org/media/media/gas.flaring.suit.nov2005/ni.shell.nov05.decision.pdf; see also Court Orders

70

that domestic laws allowing gas flaring are unconstitutional and that the defendants’ failure to conduct environmental impact assessments violated Nigerian law.571 In April 2006, the High Court of Nigeria issued another order requiring the Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria to stop flaring within one year or face fines.572

More gas flaring occurs in Nigeria than anywhere else in the world.573 Roughly 2.5 billion cubic feet of gas is wasted every day in Nigeria through gas flaring, amounting to about 70 million tons of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere.574 This amounts to losses of approximately US $2.5 billion annually.575 For over forty years, communities across the Niger Delta have faced severe health risks and suffered environmental degradation and property damage from gas flaring.576 While nobody has catalogued all the specific health effects of gas flaring in Nigeria, some of the associated adverse health impacts include premature death, child respiratory illnesses, leukemia, asthma, and cancer. These effects violate citizens’ rights to health and life.577 The 2005 court ruling and 2006 court order will help secure the rights of Nigerians affected by gas flaring.578

2. South Africa On January 27, 2005, the Cape Town High Court ruled that the South African power

company, Eskom, and the government of South Africa have not allowed adequate public participation in the consideration of Eskom’s plan to build a demonstration model of a Pebble Bed Nuclear Reactor and to then build as many as 220 nuclear reactors.579 Eskom plans to transport highly radioactive waste through communities surrounding the proposed project sites.580 These communities, which are predominately poor, black, and less educated have been denied access to basic information about Eskom’s plans.581 Thus, the High Court set aside the authorization because South Africa’s Director General of the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DG) granted approval “without having heard the applicant and without

Nigerian Gas Flaring to Stop, Climate Justice, Nov. 14, 2005, http://www.climatelaw.org/media/gas.flaring.suit.nov2005. 571 Climate Justice, supra note 570. 572 Nigerian Court Gives Shell One-Year to Stop Flaring, Environmental News Service, Apr. 11, 2006, available at http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2006/2006-04-11-01.asp. 573 Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth Nigeria, Gas Flaring in Nigeria: Human Rights, Environmental and Economic Monstrosity, 4 (June 2005), http://www.climatelaw.org/gas.flaring/report/gas.flaring.in.nigeria.pdf; Communities Sue, supra note 569. 574 Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth Nigeria, 22, supra note 573. 575 Id at 4. 576 Id. (providing an in-depth discussion of gas flaring in Nigeria and the many adverse impacts flaring has on the population and environment). 577 Id. at 24-25. 578 See Jonah Gbemre, 1-2, supra note 570. 579 See Court Yanks Environmental Permit for South African Reactor, ENVIRONMENT NEWS SERVICE, Jan. 31, 2005, http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2005/2005-01-31-07.asp. 580 See Ufrieda Ho, New Voices protest against nuclear plans, MAIL & GUARDIAN ONLINE, Nov. 12, 2003, http://www.mg.co.za/articledirect.aspx?area=%2finsight%2fmonitor&articleid=33266. 581 Id.

71

even being aware of the nature and substance of the applicant’s submissions.”582 However, Eskom has refused to halt construction of the model nuclear reactor facility.583

For the past four years environmental groups have engaged in an information dissemination campaign to involve the communities closest to the facility sites in the decision making process.584 Local communities have not been allowed to participate adequately in the decision to construct nuclear reactors, which could pose a significant threat to their rights to health and to life. The acknowledgment of the rights of communities surrounding the proposed Pebble Bed Nuclear Reactor to be heard and to participate meaningfully in the decision to locate a hazardous nuclear reactor nearby was a victory for the local community. Furthermore, the Court’s decision to strike down Eskom’s initial permit due to procedurally inadequate public consultation could improve opportunities for public participation. However, the need for a second court battle indicates that the fight for access to information is ongoing.

3. Botswana In the longest and most expensive case in Botswana’s history,585 the High Court of Botswana ruled that the government’s eviction of the Bushmen from the Central Kalahari Game Reserve was “unlawful” and “unconstitutional.”586 The Court held that the Bushmen have a right to hunt, gather, and live on their ancestral land, and need not obtain special permits to enter land on which they have historically had a right to be.587 The Court declared that the Bushmen “were deprived of such possession by the Government forcibly or wrongly and without their consent.”588 However, the Court rejected the appellants’ arguments that the government had violated their fundamental right to be consulted before terminating services inside the CKGR,589 and also denied that the government need restore those services.590

In a dissenting opinion that strongly supported the Bushmen’s fundamental rights, Judge Dow cited the Convention of the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, to which Botswana is a party, in noting that nations must “ensure that members of indigenous peoples have equal rights in respect of effective participation in public life and that no decisions directly relating to their rights and interests are taken without their informed consent.”591 Judge Dow wrote that the government’s action that dispossessed the Bushman of their land amounts to abridging their rights to “life, liberty, and freedom of movement.”592 She chastised the Botswanan government for holding a “view of development [that] fails to take into consideration the knowledge, culture, and ideologies” of the Bushmen, which are rooted in their ancestral

582 Earthlife Africa v. Director-General of Dept of Envtl Affairs & Tourism 2005 No. 7653/03 (HC) at 1, 5 (S. Afr.), available at http://www.lrc.org.za/Judgements/judgements_highcourt.asp. 583 Id. 584 See Ufreida Ho, supra note 580. 585 Roy Sesana, Keiwa Setlhobogwa and Others v. The Attorney General (Dec. 13, 2006), High Court of Botswana, held at Lobatse, Misca. No. 52 of 2002, at 140, Dow, U., dissenting. Available at Survival International, http://www.survival-international.org/news.php?id=2235. 586 Id., at 122, Dibotelo, M. 587 Id. at 121-22. 588 Id. at 121. 589 Id.,. at 70. 590 Id., at 81. 591 Id. at 203, Dow, U., dissenting. 592 Id. at 206.

72

lands.593 Justice Dow emphasized that the Bushmen have a fundamental right grounded in “dignity and respect” to choose their way of life.594

In a separate opinion, Judge Phumaphi emphasized that “[a]ll [appellants] wanted was to be left undisturbed on their land.”595 When the government both forbade the Bushmen from hunting on their ancestral lands and stopped their food supply rations, it was “tantamount to condemning the residents of the CKGR to death by starvation,” and thus violated their constitutional right to life.596 By denying the Bushmen the right to enter the park without a permit, the government also denied their fundamental right to freedom of movement.597 The decision is a strong affirmation that the rights to life and livelihood of indigenous people are fundamentally rooted in access to their traditional lands and culture.

4. Chile

In April 2005, a Chilean Court of Appeals ruled against a Chilean company in a suit charging the company with the contamination of the northern border town of Arica.598 In the mid-1980s, the company, Promel, imported twenty tons of lead and arsenic-laced mining waste to Arica for processing and then abandoned it. Local children were subsequently found to have dangerously high levels of lead and arsenic in their bodies.599 The non-governmental organization Fiscalia del Medio Ambiente (FIMA) filed the lawsuit on behalf of the affected citizens.600 FIMA also collaborated with the Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide (E-LAW) to obtain documentation that laid the groundwork for the suit. The court ruled that Promel had acted maliciously in contaminating the town of Arica, and ordered the company to pay for remediation of the environmental damage that its activities had caused.601 This decision protects Arica citizens’ rights to health and to a healthy environment.

5. Australia602 On June 1, 2005, Energy Resources of Australia (ERA) was fined $150,000 after

pleading guilty to contamination of drinking and process water systems at the Ranger uranium processing plant in March 2004 and the contamination of mobile equipment leaving the facility between November 2003 and March 2004.603 The Ranger Mine is one of four mineral leases in Kakadu National Park, which is listed as a World Heritage site for both its cultural and natural significance and is co-managed by Australia and the aboriginal traditional owners. 604 The

593 Id. at 245. 594 Id. at 276. 595 Id. at 290, Phumpaphi, M.P. (emphasis in original). 596 Id. at 381. 597 Id. at 398. 598 Chile to Compensate Toxic Waste Victims, E-LAW E-Bulletin, May 20, 2005, http://www.elaw.org/news/ebulletin/text.asp?id=2857. 599 Id. 600 Id. 601 Id. 602 This situation was included as a case study in the issue paper prepared for the 61st session of the Commission on Human Rights. 603 See Energy Resources of Australia (ERA), Court Action Against ERA, (June 1, 2005), http://www.energyres.com.au/currentnews/general/index.php3?id=187. 604See Department of the Environment and Heritage, Uranium Mining in the Alligator Rivers Region, http://www.deh.gov.au/ssd/uranium-mining/arr-mines/index.html (last visited March 14, 2006); see also Department

73

mineral lease to the Ranger Mine, however, is owned and operated by ERA.605 ERA is 68.4% owned by the Rio Tinto Corporation, and is the world’s third largest uranium producer.606

In addition to the Ranger Mine, the Miramar people hold traditional, aboriginal land title to Jabiluka, a second uranium mining project that ERA sought to rehabilitate.607 On February 25, 2005, following nearly three years of negotiation over the future management of the lease at Jabiluka, the Miramar signed an historic agreement with ERA. The agreement waives some of ERA’s financial obligations flowing from construction of the mine’s earlier decline in 1998, and in return gives the Miramar the right to veto any future mining at the Jabiluka site.608 The Miramar’s success at Jabiluka will help protect their rights to livelihood and to a healthy environment.

6. United States

a. Rio Tinto On August 7, 2006, the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion in Sarei v. Rio Tinto, PLC, in which it reversed the decision of a lower court and reinstated a lawsuit brought by residents of Bougainville, Papua New Guinea against London-based Rio Tinto PLC.609 The lawsuit610 alleges that these residents are victims of numerous violations of international law, including racial discrimination, environmental devastation in violation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), war crimes and crimes against humanity, resulting from Rio Tinto’s Bougainville mining operations and Rio Tinto’s conduct during the ten-year civil conflict following an uprising at its mine. The Court held that the lower court erred in dismissing the plaintiff’s racial discrimination and UNCLOS claim on the grounds that the challenged acts were “acts of state” that were not subject to judicial review. Instead, the Court held that the allegations of racial discrimination constituted jus cogens violations, or violations that could not be insulated from judicial scrutiny,611 and recognized UNCLOS as customary international law.612 The Court reinstated the plaintiff’s claims and remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings.

of Environment and Heritage, Kakadu National Park Homepage, http://www.deh.gov.au/parks/kakadu/ (last visited Nov. 29, 2005). 605 See ERA, Ranger Operation, http://www.energyres.com.au/ranger/ (last visited March 14, 2006). 606 ERA, Corporate Information, http://www.energyres.com.au/corporate/information.shtml (last visited March 14, 2006). 607 Aborigines Win Veto on Kakadu Mining, THE SYDNEY MORNING HERALD, Feb. 25, 2005, available at http://www.smh.com.au/news/Business/Aborigines-win-veto-on-Kakadu-uranium-mining/2005/02/25/1109180079111.html. 608 Id.; see also Wise Uranium Project, Jabiluka Uranium Mining Project (Northern Territory, Australia), (Feb. 25, 2005, available at http://www.wise-uranium.org/upjab.html. 609 Sarei v. Rio Tinto, PLC, 456 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2006). 610 The suit was brought under a U.S. law called the Alien Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §1350, which gives U.S. federal courts jurisdiction over any civil action brought by a non-citizen for a tort committed in violation of international law. 611 Sarei, 456 F.3d at 1085 612 Id. at 1078.

74

b. Rocky Flats, Colorado

On February 15, 2006, a U.S. federal jury found Dow Chemical Co. and the former Rockwell International Corp. responsible for $553.9 million in damages for exposing residents near the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant to contamination, endangering health and contaminating property.613 The lawsuit was originally filed in 1990 on behalf of 13,000 Colorado residents. Plaintiffs claimed that the nuclear plant contaminated their land, lowering property values.614 During the trial, a study was presented showing public health effects, including higher rates of lung cancer among those living near the plant.615

Rockwell and Dow ran the Cold War-era plant for decades on behalf of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission and its successor, the U.S. Department of Energy. In 1992, Rockwell admitted to storing hazardous waste without a permit, to storing wastes in containers that leaked, and that its actions caused contamination of reservoirs that supplied drinking water to nearby cities, violating the right to water of nearby residents.616 The center of the site was so contaminated with plutonium and toxic chemicals that demolition and cleanup of the site cost $7 billion.617

c. Ex-Im/OPIC In August, 2005, the United States District Court for the Northern District Court of

California denied a U.S. government motion for summary judgment in a pending climate change case, allowing the case to go forward as plaintiffs attempt to compel the U.S. government to take immediate action to prevent climate change.618 Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the City of Boulder, Colorado, the City of Oakland, California and individual parties are suing the Export Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im) and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for providing over US$32 billion of financial assistance to oil and other fossil fuel projects without first evaluating the projects’ global warming impacts.619

In an early attempt to dismiss the suit, the federal government filed a motion charging that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the suit. The court denied the government’s motion, holding that in order to have standing, plaintiffs needed only to demonstrate that “it is reasonably probable that the challenged action will threaten their concrete interests.”620 The court determined that the plaintiffs had met this standard, and that they “present[ed] evidence

613 See Jon Sarche, Jury Says Dow, Rockwell Should Pay $553M, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, (Feb. 15, 2006), available at http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2006/02/14/jury_says_dow_rockwell_should_pay_553m/, (last visited March 14, 2006). 614 Id. 615 Id. 616 See Sarche supra note 613. 617 See Anne Imse, Rocky Flats case getting closer to an end, ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS, Jan. 20, 2006, available at http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4401749,00.html. 618 See Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Watson, No. C 02-4106 JSW, 4 (N. D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2005), Order Denying Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, available at http://www.climatelawsuit.org/documents/ruling82305.pdf; see also Climate Lawsuit, Lawsuit Explained, http://www.climatelawsuit.org/lawsuit.htm, (last visited March 14, 2006). 619 Id. 620 Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Watson, No. C 02-4106 JSW, 4 (N. D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2005), available at http://www.climatelawsuit.org/index.htm (last visited March 14, 2006).

75

demonstrating that projects supported by OPIC and Ex-Im are directly or indirectly responsible for… nearly eight percent of the world’s emissions.”621

The court’s language strongly links carbon dioxide and methane emissions to various human health problems, and acknowledges plaintiff’s right to a clean and healthy environment.

7. Peru

On June 27, 2006, Peru’s highest court recognized the environmental and human health impacts of a U.S.-owned metal smelter when it ordered state health officials to take emergency measures to protect the health of the population in the Andean community of La Oroya.622 The Tribunal ordered the Ministry of Health to, among other things, develop and implement a "public health emergency plan" to alleviate the toxic emissions that the smelter was releasing into the community, signifying a great victory in the fight against the harmful effects of the smelter.623

The Doe Run Corporation, a U.S.-based company, operates the eighty year old copper and lead smelter, the emissions of which contain lead, arsenic, cadmium, and sulfur dioxide (among other contaminants), that threaten the right to life, livelihood, health, and a healthy environment of the 30,000 members of this Peruvian community.624 A March 2005 study by researchers from St. Louis University - with assistance from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control - showed that 99 percent of the children tested in La Oroya had blood lead levels vastly exceeding the limits established as safe by the U.S. EPA and the World Health Organization.625

8. Argentina

On April 19, 2006, an Argentine court ordered a coke-producing plant in Buenos Aires province to pay $627,000 to 47 people whose health and environment were harmed by the plant’s operations.626 In upholding a lower court’s ruling, Hall No. 3 of the Civil and Commercial Court in La Plata rejected the company’s assertion that because none of the victims have been diagnosed with cancer, the verdict penalizes a merely hypothetical risk and not actual damage.627 The court said that the lack of confirmed cancer cases “does not remove the carcinogenic potential of the pollution, neither is it relevant in order to consider the aggressive factors produced by Copetro.”628 Following a temporary closure imposed by local authorities, the company has promised to make improvements.

621 Id. 622 See KMOV.com, Peru Court Orders Emergency Cleanup of Town Where Doe Run Operates Smelter, http://www.kmov.com/business/asseenonnews4/stories/kmov_localnews_060630_doerunperu.1110d67b.html (last visited June 30, 2006) 623 Id. 624 AIDA, La Oroya: Lead poisoning and the Doe Run lead smelter in Peru, available at http://www.aida-americas.org/aida.php?page=laoroya (last visited March 6, 2006). 625 Press Release AIDA, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights asked to Prevent a Public Health Crisis in La Oroya, Peru, Nov. 21, 2005, http://www.aida-americas.org/aida.php?page=laoroya.iachr&PHPSESSID=79616d309dc6a8c6ed0c9da4e507cb0d. 626 See David Haskel, Argentine Court Orders Coal-to-Coke Plant to Pay Damages for Environmental Pollution, INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENT REPORTER, May 3, 2006, 29 Int'l Env't Rep. 9. 627 Id. 628 Id.

76

B. Governments

1. Brazil In February 2005, Dorothy Stang, a 74-year-old American nun and rural activist who has

worked with peasants on land issues in the region since the 1970’s, was shot to death in Pará, along with three other rural activists.629 Her death resulted in a number of government actions to address the issue of illegal logging and land-grabbing. In the Brazilian state of Pará, illegal logging and land grabbing have resulted in serious deforestation in the region and have deprived rural farmers of their homes, land, and means of subsistence.630 Land grabbers illegally obtain land and sell it to cattle ranchers, soy planters and loggers, all of whom clear the land of trees.631 They often take valuable property near planned paved roads and burn villages to drive the inhabitants away. The ongoing illegal land grabbing and logging violates inhabitants’ rights to work and to a healthy environment.

Sister Dorothy was killed when she confronted loggers and ranchers who had been illegally logging and allegedly burning down farmers’ huts in an attempt to expel them.632 For decades, she had worked, through the Pastoral Land Commission, an agency of the Bishops’ Conference in Brazil, to defend rural farmers from illegal loggers and ranchers, and repeatedly reported human rights abuses and taught locals how to use the forest sustainably.633 Prior to her assassination, Sister Dorothy had received numerous death threats, and the Brazilian Order of Lawyers, a nationwide lawyers group, had included her on a list of human rights workers who faced possible assassination.634

Almost immediately after Stang’s death, the government sent 2,000 federal troops into Pará in order to help police stop the violence and to demonstrate the seriousness of the Brazilian government’s intent to fix the situation.635 The government also announced a 6-month ban on logging of millions of acres of Amazon rainforest, and established two large conservation areas in the region to preserve rainforest and enhance the government’s ability to monitor nearby logging.636

In the past year, logging in the Brazilian Amazon has dropped by half.637 In putting forth a substantial effort to curb land grabbing, deforestation and violence in the Amazon, the

629 Larry Rohter, Brazil Promises Crackdown After Nun’s Shooting Death, N.Y. Times, Feb. 14, 2005. 630 A Healthier Amazon, THE INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE, Sept. 14, 2005. 631 Acting, At Last, Against the Violent Landgrabbers, BRAZIL REPORT (Intelligence Research Ltd), Mar. 1, 2005; see also Murder in the Amazon: A U.S.-Born Nun and Environmentalist is Gunned Down in Brazil for Opposing Rainforest Logging, DEMOCRACY NOW, Feb. 22, 2005, http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/22/1527243. 632 American Nun Shot Dead in Brazil’s Amazon, PLANET ARK, Feb. 14, 2005, http://www.planet ark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/29489/story.htm. 633 PLANET ARK, supra note Error! Bookmark not defined.. 634 See SISTERS OF NOTRE DAME DE NAMUR, supra note Error! Bookmark not defined.. 635 Larry Rohter, World Briefing Americas: Brazil: 2000 Troops To Amazon Region, N.Y. TIMES, Feb. 17, 2005, available at http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE3DF103AF934A25751C0A9639C8B63. 636 Christl Dabu, Dorothy Stang: Defender of the Amazon’s Peasant Families, CATHOLIC NEW TIMES, March 8, 2005, http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MKY/is_8_29/ai_n14693169. See also N.Y. Times Editorial, Sister Dorothy’s Killers, Mar. 2, 2005, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/02/opinion/02wed3.html?ex=1143003600&en=52901a2f9b4fcc6e&ei=5070. 637 Amazonian deforestation ‘halved last year’, LATIN AMERICAN WEEKLY REPORT, Aug. 30, 2005.

77

Brazilian government has taken steps to protect local people’s rights to life, health, work, and a healthy environment.

2. Swaziland In June 2005, legislation passed by the government of Swaziland gave the Swaziland

Environmental Authority (SEA) the power to take enforcement measures, including levying fines against environmental offenders. The legislation marks the first time since the SEA was established that the government has given the SEA such authority.638 The negative effects of government-encouraged industrialization had created a growing public concern regarding environmental issues.639 The SEA’s new capacity to enforce Swaziland’s comprehensive environmental laws will protect citizens’ rights to health, life and clean water by helping to counteract air and water pollution and decrease associated health risks.640

In conjunction with its new enforcement powers, the SEA has also begun an environmental education campaign in schools, businesses, and town centers. The campaign will increase awareness of environmental issues and promote public participation in developing solutions to Swaziland’s environmental problems.641 During its environmental “Road Show” the SEA educated participants on a host of environmental problems, such as soil degradation caused by unsustainable agriculture practices and the depletion of old-growth trees for firewood. These problems particularly affect poor people in rural areas.642 This education campaign helps to promote the right to participation in conjunction with the protection of other substantive environmental rights.

3. Liberia643 Liberia contains almost half of the remaining closed canopy tropical rainforest in the Upper Guinea Forest of West Africa. 644 Though Liberia’s rainforest is recognized as a global biodiversity hotspot, it is severely threatened by industrial logging and has shrunk to an estimated 12.7% of its original size.645 The logging has threatened the rights to culture, health, work and clean water of local indigenous and rural communities. Such communities depend on the land and the forest for their livelihoods, food, clean water, medicinal plants, and construction materials.

638 Swaziland: Environment law enforcement gets new teeth, UN INTEGRATED REGIONAL INFORMATION NETWORK (June 4, 2005), available at 2005 WL 8872920. 639 Id. 640 See Andile Shiba & Kenneth Makhanya, Laws that Govern the Impact of Business on the Environment, LIQUID AFRICA, March 9, 2004, available at 2004 WL 16719745; Swaziland: Environment law, supra note 638; Yonge Nawe Environmental Action Group, Yonge Nawe introduces a community based air pollution monitoring system, Feb. 15, 2002, http://www.yongenawe.com/07search/2002/airquality150202.html. 641 See Swaziland: Environment law, supra note 638. 642 See id. 643 A case study detailing Liberia’s timber problems was included in the issue paper prepared for the Commission’s 60th Session. 644 SAVE MY FUTURE FOUNDATION (SAMFU), PLUNDER, THE DESTRUCTION OF LIBERIA’S RAINFORESTS 4 (Sept. 2002), http://www.forestsmonitor.org/reports/plunder/plunder.pdf. 645 For example, log production in Nigeria increased 1300% between 1997 and 2001. Id. See also USDA Forest Service, International Program, Liberia, http://www.fs.fed.us/global/globe/africa/liberia.htm (last visited Feb. 27, 2006).

78

On February 7, 2006, President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf signed Executive Order No. 1, adopting recommendations of the Forest Concession Review Committee, and thereby declaring null and void all ‘purported forest concessions’ in Liberia.646 In an effort to increase transparency and public participation in forest management, the Forest Concession Review Committee (“Committee”) recommended that Liberia establish a Forest Reform Monitoring Committee and develop a forest concession allocation system based on community consultation.647 It also recommended that current forestry laws be amended to prevent abuses and improve conservation.648 The recommendations were made after the Committee determined that current concession holders were uniformly out of compliance with applicable laws, and that illegal concession procurement, non-payment of taxes, support to militias, and involvement in the arms for timber trade (for which the UN Security Council had imposed trade sanctions) were continuing problems in forest management.649

In October 2006, President Johnson-Sirleaf signed a National Forestry Reform law that gives local communities a much greater say in how local forests are managed, and provides greater benefits from sustainable timber management to communities.650 The law strengthens conservation of forest biodiversity by preventing shifting cultivation and settlements in conserved forest land, and strengthens prohibitions on export of wild animals.651 Due to the reforms instituted this year, the UN Security Council lifted sanctions barring Liberia from exporting timber.652

Former leader of Liberia Charles Taylor, who used illegal timbering to fund his repressive regime,653 is awaiting trial before the UN-sponsored Special Court for Sierra Leone on 11 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity.654 In June 2006, a Dutch court sentenced Guus Van Kouwenhoven to eight years in jail for violating a UN imposed arms embargo on Liberia.655 The court found that Van Kouwenhoven had sold arms to Taylor in exchange for timber concessions. Van Kouwenhoven was acquitted of war crimes; it had been alleged that his timber companies had financed militias that committed atrocities in Liberia.

The issuance of the Executive Order, establishment of the Monitoring Committee, and passage of the Forestry Reform Law by the current administration will promote conservation of Liberian forests, enhancing protection of the environmental rights of local communities. It will

646 Ellen Nullifies Forest Concessions, ALLAFRICA.COM, Feb. 6, 2006, http://allafrica.com/stories/200602070637.html. The text of Executive Order No. 1 is available at http://www.elaw.org/resources/text.asp?id=3051. 647 See Forest Concession Review Committee Completes Third Phase of Review, EMBASSY OF THE UNITED STATES, July 7, 2005, http://monrovia.usembassy.gov/liberia/pressJuly072005.html. 648 Id. 649 See id. 650 See An Act Adopting National Forestry Reform Law of 2006, (approved Sept. 2006) available at http://www.fao.org/forestry/site/31586/en/page.jsp, (click on “An act adopting the national forestry reform law of 2006. Zip file), (last visited March 9, 2007)., 651 Id. 652 News Release, “Liberian President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf Signs National Forestry Reform Law of 2006,” (Oct. 6, 2006), available at http://www.ewire.com/display.cfm/Wire_ID/3403, (last visited March 9, 2007). 653 Id. 654 See The Special Court for Sierra Leone, available at http://www.sc-sl.org/Taylor.html (last visited March 9, 2007). 655 News Release, “Dutch timber dealer convicted of breaking UN Arms Embargo,” Environmental News Service, June 12, 2006.

79

also facilitate the involvement of indigenous and rural communities in the management of the forest and benefit the communities’ procedural right to participation.656

4. Kenya In an effort to protect Kenya’s dwindling forests, the Kenyan Parliament passed Forest

Bill 2005.657 Forest Bill 2005 requires forest managers to consider water availability, biodiversity conservation, sustainable forest practices, and culturally significant lands in the management of Kenya’s forests.658 The Bill also includes incentives for community and private involvement in forestry, while closing a loophole that had allowed the Environment Minister to excise forests without consultation.659 It concurrently protects natural resources and promotes the procedural right to participate by establishing a management structure which divides responsibilities between high-ranking officers and local officials.660 It allows the Kenya Forest Service to establish Forest Conservancy Area Committees for each conservancy area, and those committees may then create divisional conservation committees.661

Finally, Forest Bill 2005 further enhances the right to participation by creating Community Forest Associations which should afford communities a better means of protecting their rights to culture and livelihood.662 Through the Associations, members of a forest community may apply to the Forest Service for privileges relating to the management of forest areas. These privileges include implementing programs consistent with the traditional uses of the forest, the conservation of sacred groves, allowing for the collection of medicinal herbs, the harvesting of fuel wood, and ecotourism.663 Forest Bill 2005’s provisions thus have the potential to protect both human and environmental rights.

5. Chile

After years of using an exception to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) to export the wood from endangered alerce trees to the United States, the Chilean government lifted its longstanding exception (or “reservation”) in March 2005 after extreme pressure from environmental activists.664 This change in policy came at a critical time as less than fifteen percent of the world’s original alerce forests remain.665 The slow-growing 656 See SAMFU, supra at note Error! Bookmark not defined.; See also Press Release, Security Council, Security Council Extends Liberia Diamond Embargo for Six Months, Renews Expert Panel, Unanimously Adopting Resolution 1607, UN Doc. SC/8419 (June 21, 2005), http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/sc8419.doc.htm. 657 Kenyan Parliament Passes Long-Delayed Law to Protect Dwindling Forest Cover, AGENCE FRANCE PRESSE ENGLISH WIRE, Aug. 17, 2005, http://forests.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=45292 [hereinafter Kenyan Parliament]. 658 Comparison of the Forest Bill 2005 with the Draft Constitution, FOREST ACTION NETWORK, http://www.fanworld.org/Comparative%20Analysis.htm (last visited Feb. 27, 2006). 659 Press Release, Kenya Forests Working Group, National Alliance of Civil Society Organizations in the Forest Sector Appeals to Legislators: Vote the Forests Bill 2005 into Law for the Sake of our Forests (July 25, 2005), http://www.fanworld.org/Comparative%20Analysis.htm. 660 Comparison of the Forest Bill 2005 with the Draft Constitution, supra note 658. 661 Id. 662 Id. 663 Id. 664 Chile Protects Endangered Hardwood, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ALLIANCE WORLDWIDE, http://www.elaw.org/news/advocate/default.asp?article=2879 (last visited Mar. 20, 2006); Chile Drops Reservation to CITES Trade Ban on Endangered Trees, ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS SERVICE, Apr. 12, 2005, http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2005/2005-04-12-03.asp. 665 ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS SERVICE, supra note 664.

80

alerce tree is a relative of the giant sequoia and is unique to the coastal temperate rainforests of southern Chile.666

The CITES reservation purportedly only allowed export of alerce logged before 1973 (when alerce was added to the endangered list) or trees damaged by fire or disease.667 However, the narrow scope of the exception was ignored or taken advantage of through rampant illegal logging of healthy trees and arson for the purpose of salvage logging.668 Information gathered from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service confirmed that U.S. companies have imported alerce and provided the groundwork for a criminal investigation in Chile.669 In 2004, Chilean government officials were linked to this scandal when Carlos Weber, the director of the National Forestry Corporation (CONAF- Chile’s CITES administrative authority) was arrested on charges of bribery and influencing the trafficking of alerce.670

This development illustrates the vital role the procedural rights to participate and to obtain environmental information play in protecting the right to a healthy environment.

6. Russia In March of 2005, Russia joined thirty-two other nations in ratifying the Vienna

Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage.671 Ratification of the Convention will allow those adversely impacted by nuclear accidents in Russia to receive compensation for injuries and will provide universal standards governing liability.672 This is a significant step for the international community and economically disadvantaged groups in Russia; communities affected by nuclear accidents have historically lacked adequate means to address impacts on their rights to life, health, and development. Russia presently has nine operating nuclear power stations with a total of twenty-nine reactors, comprising a significant percentage of the world’s nuclear reactors.673

Becoming a party to the Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage should help to stabilize the nuclear industry in Russia. By ratifying the Convention, Russia accepted established standards of absolute liability for owners and operators of nuclear facilities in the event of an accident as well as the compensation of victims.674 Russia has thus taken steps towards protecting its citizens’ rights and promoting higher operating standards at its nuclear facilities.

666 Id. 667 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ALLIANCE WORLDWIDE, supra note 664. 668 Id. 669 Id.; see also ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ALLIANCE WORLDWIDE, supra note 664. 670 ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS SERVICE, supra note 664. 671 See INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Vienna Convention on Liability for Nuclear Damage, http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Conventions/liability_status.pdf (last change of status, May 13, 2005). 672 Id. 673 Nuclear Power Stations in Russia, BELLONA, http://www.bellona.no/en/environmental_facts_and_info/radioactivity_and_nuclear_power/12666.html (last visited Feb. 27, 2006). 674 See Vienna Convention for Liability for Nuclear Damage, May 21, 1963, 1155 UNT.S. 311, available at http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/1996/inf500.shtml.

81

7. Spain

In 2005, regional authorities in Spain closed three factories for failure to comply with carbon dioxide emissions regulations implemented to meet EU climate change directives. 675 This is the first time Spain has taken such enforcement measures. These efforts promote citizens’ rights to health and life.

8. Australia

a. Regional Agreement and Aboriginal Management Plan for the Queensland Wet Tropics World Heritage Area

In April 2005, the Australian government and eighteen Rainforest Aboriginal tribal groups endorsed the Regional Agreement and Aboriginal Management Plan for the Queensland Wet Tropics World Heritage Area. 676 The agreement encourages indigenous involvement in conservation and management decisions by formally recognizing traditional owner involvement in the land and cultural management of the area, and providing a foundation for government agencies to involve aboriginal people in decision-making and on-ground management activities in the World Heritage Area.677

The Agreement calls for a number of policy changes including recognition of the World Heritage Area for its cultural value, in addition to its previously recognized natural value; the appointment of an additional aboriginal representative to the board responsible for legislation and policy surrounding the World Heritage Area; the establishment of an Aboriginal Rainforest Council to represent the aboriginal community on management issues and act as a statutory body to the managing board; and protocols to guide aboriginal engagement in park management, permitting and planning.678

The Agreement will enhance the rights of the aboriginal group to access to information about land management decisions in the World Heritage Area, and will increase the community’s ability to participate in and influence management decisions. Its endorsement acknowledges the cultural importance of the area to the Rainforest Aboriginal community, the link between environmental, cultural and human rights, and the need for protection and recognition of cultural heritage values.679

b. National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality

In August, 2005, Australian federal and state governments approved A$316 million to fund the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality.680 The Plan is intended to mitigate soil salinity and deteriorating water quality in Western Australia.681 Dryland salinity results 675 Climate Change: Spain Shuts Factories That Failed to Obtain CO[2] Emissions Permits Required by EU Law, BNA INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENT DAILY, Sept. 14, 2005. 676 See Press Release, Wet Tropics Management Authority, Historic Aboriginal Agreement for Wet Tropics (April 29, 2005), http://www.wettropics.gov.au/pdf/media/regional_agreement_release_290405.pdf. 677 Id. 678 Id. 679 Id. 680 See Press Release, Minister for the Environment and Heritage, $316 Million Heralds New Era for WA Salinity Fight (Aug. 3, 2005), http://www.deh.gov.au/minister/env/2005/mr03aug205.html. 681 See The National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality, http://www.napswq.gov.au/ (last visited Feb. 13, 2006).

82

when native vegetation is cleared for agricultural or urban development and rising groundwater flushes salt to the surface.682 Salt intrusion affects up to 4.5 million hectares of farmland across Australia, costing local farmers their livelihoods, and amounting to an A$3.5 billion annual cost to the national economy.683 It also affects water supplies for drinking and irrigation and has serious economic, social and environmental consequences for rural and urban communities.684

The funds will provide farmers in mid to low rainfall areas with economic incentives to plant tree crops, in addition to their traditional crops, in an effort to reduce surface salinity.685 The goal is both to help landholders maintain productive businesses and responsibly manage Australia’s natural resources for the public good.686 The National Action Plan seeks to balance environmental protection and economic productivity, protecting the right to development and the right to water by addressing the causes of salinity as well as the symptoms.687

9. Fiji Fiji’s Environment Management Act of 2005 applies the principles of sustainable use and

development of natural resources to identifying matters of national importance for the Fiji Islands.688 The Act establishes a National Environment Council to oversee and implement the National Environment Strategy, and charges the Environment Department with oversight and enforcement of Environmental Impact Assessments for all development proposals.689 The Act also specifically instructs the Environment Department “to design and implement policies and programmes on pollution and waste management, abatement and reduction.”690 Recent incidents, including a fire at a rubbish dump which blanketed a Fijian town with smoke and released poisonous chemicals into the environment, posing serious health risks, have provided the impetus for this waste management provision.691

The statute’s priorities include: preservation of the coastal environment, margins of wetlands, lakes and rivers; protection of outstanding natural landscapes and natural features; protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitat of indigenous fauna; the relationship of indigenous Fijians with their ancestral lands, waters, sites, sacred areas and other treasures; and protection of human life and health.692

682 See Press Release, National Dryland Salinity Program, Salinity, an Australian Disaster (June 24, 1999), http://www.ndsp.gov.au/news.asp?news=3&section=&title=&id=10. 683 See Press Release, Minister for the Environment and Heritage, $316 Million Heralds New Era for WA Salinity Fight (Aug. 3, 2005), http://www.deh.gov.au/minister/env/2005/mr03aug205.html. 684 See The Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Salinity, Australia's Silent Flood, http://www.abc.net.au/learn/silentflood/factsheet.htm (last visited Nov. 29, 2005). 685 See supra note 683. 686 Id. 687 Id. 688 See Environment Management Act, 2005, 3(2), available at http://www.paclii.org/fj/legis/num_act/ema2005242/. 689 Id. at 11(12). 690 Id. at 11(1)(d). 691 See Tamani Nair, Pacific Regional Environment Programme, The Real Cost of Fiji's Growing Mountain of Rubbish (Aug. 1, 2005), http://www.sprep.org.ws/article/news_detail.asp?id=229. 692 Id. at 3(3).

83

10. United States

A 2004 inspection by officials from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico’s main campus in Ponce, Puerto Rico, revealed the University’s failure to follow U.S. federal law in storing and handling hazardous waste.693 In April 2005, the University reached an agreement with the EPA.694 The agreement requires the University to implement an innovative environmental management and training program in Puerto Rico to teach intermediate and high school faculty and staff how to comply with federal and commonwealth hazardous waste management regulations.695 The University will also pay a $37,000 penalty.696

The inspection found that the University had stored dangerous waste materials in poorly conditioned open containers, and had failed to determine whether the wastes it generated were hazardous.697 The University was further found not to have maintained or operated its facility to minimize the risk of fire and explosion, and to have failed to provide workers with needed training in hazardous waste management or to have developed emergency contingency plans. Each breach threatened hundreds of students, staff, and faculty’s rights to health, life, and livelihood.

According to recent reports, unwitting students and university employees throughout North America are frequently exposed to hazardous materials.698 Many Universities manage power plants, wastewater-treatment plants, automotive fueling stations, research labs, automotive shops, photography studios, and other types of facilities which are known to generate hazardous waste.699

693 The law at issue was the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. For more information, see Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico Fined for Hazwaste, ENVIRONMENT NEWS NETWORK, June 14, 2004, http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2004/2004-06-14-09.asp. 694 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), EPA and Catholic University to Provide Hazardous Waste Training at Schools (April 19, 2005), http://www.epa.gov/region02/news/2005/05035.htm. 695 Id. 696 Id. 697 See EPA, The Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico Fined for Hazardous Waste Violations (June 3, 2004), http://www.epa.gov/region02/news/2004/04080.htm. 698 See Jeff Slivka, International Risk Management Institute, Colleges and Universities: Changing Your “School of Thought” When it Comes to Environmental Liability (Oct. 2000), http://www.irmi.com/Expert/Articles/2000/Slivka10.aspx. 699 See Adam Steinman & Kristin Ivanovich, Is Your School Next?, AMERICAN SCHOOL & UNIVERSITY, Nov. 1, 2001, available at http://asumag.com/mag/university_environmental_school_next/.

84

CASE STUDIES

IV. GLOBAL ISSUES

A. Natural Disasters and the Loss of Coastal Barriers700 On December 26, 2004, a magnitude 9.0 earthquake in the Indian Ocean caused a series

of massive tsunamis that claimed the lives of over 230,000 people. Assessments by UNEP and other organizations revealed that mangrove forest destruction, coral reef mining, shrimp farming, and other industrial developments that have destroyed or degraded natural coastal defenses worsened the tsunamis’ human cost and thus implicated the rights to life, health, work, culture and home.701

While most Asian nations have strong laws protecting the coastal environment, enforcement has lagged. Tourism and aquaculture interests have rapidly encroached upon beaches and cleared inter-tidal areas to provide better views and wider beaches or a brackish water environment in which to cultivate shrimp and prawns.702 As a result, coastal ecosystems in some Asian countries have been severely damaged, including an estimated reduction of more than 50% of coastal mangroves in tropical and sub-tropical nations.703

The tsunamis revealed the dangers of this encroachment. Where they remained intact, coastal barriers such as mangrove forests, coral reefs, vegetated sand dunes, and peat swamps acted as natural buffers between the sea and the coast, substantially mitigating the effects of the tsunamis.704 Mangrove forests in Thailand served as a buffer from the force of the massive waves; vegetated sand dunes in Sri Lanka’s Yala and Bundala National Parks prevented seawater from intruding inland; and in the Maldives, considerable damage was prevented by the government's diligence in protecting reefs, which bore the brunt of the impact.705 Meanwhile, Indian environmentalists have attributed the high amount of fatalities and damage in the Tamil Nadu state to widespread coastal clearing in recent decades, which destroyed nearly one-third of the mangrove area.706 In Sri Lanka, some of the heaviest damage from the tsunami was in areas where illegal coral mining and reef damage had caused severe beach erosion.707

This pattern of heightened devastation in degraded areas demonstrates the link between environmental degradation and core human rights. The thousands of lives lost reflect violations of the right to life and the right to health. The loss of coastal towns and surrounding resources impact the rights to work, culture and home.

700 This case study was included as an Asian case study in the issue paper prepared for the Commission’s 61st Session. 701 See, e.g., UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME, After the Tsunami, Rapid Environmental Assessment, Feb. 22, 2004, available at http://www.unep.org/tsunami/reports/TSUNAMI_report_complete.pdf; Lisa Mastny, Healthy Coastlines Mitigate Disasters, WORLD WATCH, May 1, 2005. 702 John Vidal, Mangrove Destruction in the Wake of the Tsunami, GUARDIAN (UK), Jan. 6, 2005. 703 Id. 704 After the Tsunami, supra note 701; see also Preserve Environment in Rebuilding After Tsunami, UN Says, U.S. DEP’T OF STATE, BUREAU OF INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION PROGRAMS, Feb. 22, 2005, http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/Archive/2005/Feb/22-781752.html. 705 Id. 706 Mastny, supra note 701. 707 Id.

85

B. Shipbreaking708

Shipbreaking - the process of dismantling obsolete marine vessels in order to reuse or recycle mechanical parts and metals - largely occurs in developing countries where there is a high demand for steel and relatively limited enforcement of labor and environmental standards.709 Pakistan, China, India, and Bangladesh are the world’s most active shipbreaking countries.710

The shipbreaking industry implicates the right to health, as it is extremely hazardous to laborers involved in the dismantling as well as to the surrounding environment. Workers can be exposed to asbestos, PCBs, lead, hazardous materials and chemicals (i.e. heavy metals, mercury, chlorofluorocarbons), excessive noise, and fire.711 In the long-term, workers face an increased likelihood of contracting cancer, asthma, and tuberculosis as a result of the unprotected handling of asbestos and other toxic substances and through the prolonged exposure to noxious fumes.712 As the United States’ Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) notes, shipbreaking operations can expose workers to a wide range of hazards, workplace activities, or conditions that are likely to cause injury or illness.713 A September, 2006 report, commissioned by the Supreme Court of India, revealed that asbestos disease exists in 16% of the Indian shipbreaking workforce714

Shipbreaking also threatens the coastal environment, as most of the work is done directly on the beach. Commonly, ships are simply driven on shore and left to be dismantled within the inter-tidal zone.715 Toxic substances that are not washed out to sea are often collected and burned in open fires, resulting in large amounts of water and air pollution.716 This pollution violates neighboring communities’ right to health and livelihood.

In February 2006, France’s highest court took action against shipbreaking in response to protests by environmental groups.717 The French ship Clemenceau, which had been sitting in the Arabian Sea awaiting permission to enter India’s waters, was deemed to have dangerously high levels of asbestos and the transfer of the 27,000 ton aircraft carrier was ended by the French State

708 This case study was included as a European case study in the issue paper prepared for the Commission’s 61st Session. 709 INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION, Shipbreaking: A Background Paper (1999) (prepared by Ataur Rahman and AZM Tabarak Ullah), available at http://www.ilo.org/public/english/protection/safework/sectors/shipbrk/shpbreak.htm. 710 See UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMME, Secretariat of the Basel Convention, Technical Guidelines for the Environmentally Sound Management of the Full and Partial Dismantling of Ships, ISSN 1020-8364 (2003), available at http://www.basel.int/pub/techguid/dismships/dismsh2003.pdf [hereinafter Technical Guidelines]. 711 Id. 712 Id. 713 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, OHSA FACTSHEET: SHIPBREAKING (2001) available at http://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/data_MaritimeFacts/shipbreaking-factsheet.pdf. 714 Basel Action Network (BAN), Press Release, Draft IMO Treaty on Ship Scrapping Immoral, (Oct. 13, 2006), available at http://www.ban.org/ban_news/2006/061013_ship_scrapping_immoral.html#1. 715 Technical Guidelines, supra at note 710. 716 Greenpeace, Shipbreaking: Toxic Substances, http://greenpeaceweb.org/shipbreak/toxicsubstances.asp (last visited Oct. 18, 2005). 717 See Chirac orders 'toxic' ship home, BBC NEWS, Feb. 16, 2006, available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4716472.stm.

86

Council on February 14th.718 The ship was headed for the Alang yard in India’s Gujarat province nearly nine years after it was decommissioned.

In October, 2006, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) met to develop a draft of an international treaty to control shipbreaking, in response to a Dutch proposal from May, 2005.719 Human rights and environmental groups have found the draft language inadequate, and noted that the convention, if implemented with the proposed language, would violate international human rights and the environment laws, including UN and ILO conventions protecting the right to a safe and healthy working environment and the Basel Convention's control of certain toxic/hazardous waste transfers.720

C. Illegal Recycling of Electronic Waste The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), released a report in January, 2005 revealing that between twenty and fifty million tons of electrical and electronic equipment waste (“e-waste”) is generated yearly.721 E-waste is estimated to make up five percent of all the municipal solid waste worldwide,722 and is said to be the fastest growing waste stream in the industrialized world.723 Much of the electronic waste generated in industrialized countries is exported illegally for recycling to developing countries in the Far East and Africa.724

The processing of e-waste can result in serious environmental hazards which adversely impact the health of the workers and nearby residents, thus violating their rights to life and health.725 The majority of the scrap yards are small, independent operations, with no oversight concerning proper and safe handling of hazardous materials. With little knowledge of the health and environmental risks, the workers use strong acids to retrieve precious metals and work in unventilated areas without proper equipment, which exposes them to hazardous slow-poisoning chemicals.726 The workers often use small hand tools to take apart discarded electronic

718 Id. 719 International Maritime Organization (IMO), Recycling of Ships; Proposal for an enforceable legally binding system for the recycling of ships, MEPC 53/3/7 (May 13, 2005), available at http://www.ban.org/Library/MEPC-53-3-7.pdf. 720 Press Release, Basel Action Network, Draft Treaty on Shipbreaking Called Immoral, (Oct. 13, 2006), available at http://www.ban.org/ban_news/2006/061013_ship_scrapping_immoral.html 721 UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMME, E-waste, The Hidden Side of IT Equipment’s Manufacturing and Use (Jan. 2005) (prepared by S. Schwarzer, A. De Bono, P. Peduzzi, G. Giuliani, and S. Kluser), available at http://www.grid.unep.ch/product/publication/download/ew_ewaste.en.pdf; See also GREENPEACE, RECYCLING OF ELECTRONIC WASTES IN CHINA & INDIA: WORKPLACE & ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION, 3 (2005), available at http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/recycling-of-electronic-waste. 722 Greenpeace, The E-Waste Problem, http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/toxics/electronics/the-e-waste-problem (last visited Jan. 25, 2006). 723 The Basel Action Network, The Digital Dump: Exporting Re-use and Abust to Africa, Oct. 24, 2005 [hereinafter BAN, The Digital Dump], http://www.ban.org/BANreports/10-24-05/index.htm. 724 Greenpeace, Hi-Tech: Highly Toxic, http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/toxics/electronics/where-does-e-waste-end-up [hereinafter Greenpeace, High-Tech] (last visited Jan. 26, 2006); see also John Vidal, Poisonous Detritus of the Electronic Revolution: Thousands of Tonnes of 'E-Waste', Some of it Highly Toxic, is Being Sent Illegally from Britain to Africa and Asia, THE GUARDIAN (London), Sep. 21, 2004. 725 See e.g. GREENPEACE, RECYCLING OF ELECTRONIC WASTES IN CHINA & INDIA: WORKPLACE & ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION (2005) [hereinafter GREENPEACE, RECYCLING], http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/recycling-of-electronic-waste.pdf. 726 Greenpeace, Hi-Tech, supra note 724.

87

equipment.727 Additionally, many operations burn their e-waste in the open, sometimes along with garbage, which results in large amounts of mercury and lead emissions being released into the air.728

The dismantling of e-waste also results in the release of large quantities of toxic organic compounds and heavy metals into surrounding soils and water sources, violating the rights to water, life and health of those living in nearby communities.729 Exposure to such metals and organic compounds is linked to severe health problems.730 For example, lead contamination can cause irreversible effects on the nervous system, especially when children are exposed, and long-term cadmium exposure can cause kidney damage and damage to bone structure.731 Exposure to PCBs, a highly persistent, known carcinogen, can suppress the immune system, cause damage to the liver, nervous system and reproductive organs, and result in behavioral changes.732 Mercury can damage the central nervous system and kidneys.733

In many countries, the trade in e-waste is a camouflaged and thriving business. Much of the trade occurs under the pretext of getting “reusable” equipment or “donations” from developed nations.734 India employs about 25,000 workers in its electronic waste scrap-yards in Delhi alone,735 where they handle between 10,000 to 20,000 tons of e-waste each year736 In China, though the government “cracked-down” on importation of e-waste in 2002,737 the illegal smuggling of e-waste into the country for dismantling remains a significant problem.738 African countries, and particularly Nigeria, face similar e-waste problems. An estimated 400,000 computers or monitors arrive in Nigeria for dismantling and recycling each month, and that quantity is expected to continue to follow a steep growth curve.739 The growing trend towards exportation of e-waste from developed to developing nations results in the disproportionate distribution environmental problems that violate human rights.

727 Id. 728 GLOBAL NEWS WIRE, A Wiser Approach to E-Waste, FINANCIAL TIMES, Nov. 13, 2005. 729 GREENPEACE, RECYCLING, supra note 725, at 3 (2005). 730 Terence Chea, American Electronic Waste Contaminates China and India, ASSOCIATED PRESS, Aug. 17, 2005, available at http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=8539. 731 See GREENPEACE, RECYCLING, supra note 725, at 4 (2005). 732 Id 733 Id. at 6-7. 734 Greenpeace, Hi-Tech, supra note 724. 735 There are also other scrap yards in Meerut, Ferozabad, Chennai, Bangalore and Mumbai. 736 See id. 737 See China to Crack Down on Smuggling of E-Trash, ASSOCIATED PRESS, May 30, 3005, http://www.ban.org/ban_news/chinato_crackdown.html. 738 For example, for 20 years the city of Taizhou, Zheijiang Province, has been engaged in the dismantling of e-waste products, and in recent years the amount of scrap work has increased dramatically, according to a Greenpeace/Basel Action Network investigative report. GREENPEACE/BASEL ACTION NETWORK, KEY FINDINGS FROM TAIZHOU FIELD INVESTIGATION (2004), http://www.ban.org/Library/Taizhou_E-waste_Research_Report.pdf. According to the investigation, massive quantities of e-waste were still being smuggled into the port of Taizhou and dismantled illegally in town and in rural areas nearby, despite prohibitions in local and national law, as well as the Basel Convention, to which China is a signatory. 739 BAN, The Digital Dump, supra note 723.

88

V. AFRICA

A. Ghana

1. Mining in Obuasi In Obuasi, in southern Ghana, the Anglogold mining company has contaminated the soil

and water with heavy metals, including arsenic, mercury, and zinc, which are present at levels many times higher than those deemed safe by the World Health Organization, harming the health and safety of the local community and devastating the surrounding environment.740 Furthermore, the town of Obuasi is surrounded by craters filled with cyanide lakes and stagnant water, some of which are fifty meters deep.741 Residents cannot drink from the streams and rivers and a thick cloud of dust hangs over the town from mining, crushing, and milling operations.742 The pollution has violated residents’ rights to life, health and clean water.

Ghana is one of the world’s top gold producers, yet Ghana’s current Mineral and Mining Law of 1986 has been ineffective in preventing natural resource destruction and protecting communities from the pollution and health risks caused by mining.743 Significant water and soil contamination surrounding its gold mining communities already threatens the health and safety of Ghana’s residents.744

A proposed mining bill threatens to further weaken environmental regulations for the gold mining industry, putting Ghanaian residents at continued risk of health and human rights violations.745 The bill would give the Minister of Mines unfettered discretion to approve or deny mineral extraction permits, potentially without requiring companies to follow any environmental and safety regulations.746 Also, protected areas such as national heritage sites and forest reserves could be opened for mining.747 In addition to posing an increased health and safety risk, the proposed bill would potentially reduce the royalty payments and taxes required of mining companies so Ghanaians would receive even fewer economic benefits from mining, and little if any compensation for the health and environmental impacts on their communities.748 Concerned groups argue that Parliament’s consideration of the bill has violated Ghanaians’ right to information and public participation in environmental decision making because citizens have not

740 Yao Graham, Obuasi’s Poisoned Fruit, 8 AFRICAN AGENDA 2, Aug. 10, 2005, available at http://twnafrica.org/news_detail.asp?twnID=810. Studies show that residents of Obuasi have increased levels of malaria, diarrhea, acute respiratory infections, skin diseases, and other health conditions when compared to people in the rest of the country. 741 Id. 742 Graham, supra note 740; see also Thomas Akabazaa, Ashanti Goldfields Obuasi mine: a legacy betrayed, 8 AFRICAN AGENDA 2, Aug. 10, 2005, http://twnafrica.org/africanagenda.asp. 743 See Memorandum on the Minerals and Mining Bill 2005 Submitted by the National Coalition on Mining to the Select Parliamentary Committee on Mines and Minerals (June 13, 2005) [hereinafter Memorandum on Mining Bill 2005], http://www.minesandcommunities.org/Action/press646.htm. 744 Id.; see also Jacob Saah, Ghana Reshapes its Mining Laws, BUSINESS DAY, July 11, 2005, available at 2005 WL 10913850; see also Memorandum on Mining Bill 2005, supra note Error! Bookmark not defined.. 745 See Memorandum on Mining Bill 2005, supra note Error! Bookmark not defined.. 746 See id. 747 Gabby Asumin, Negative Impact of Mining, THE MINING NEWS, Aug. 30, 2005, http://www.theminingnews.org/news.cfm?newsID=1272; see also Memorandum on Mining Bill 2005, supra note 743 748 Memorandum on Mining Bill 2005, supra note 743.

89

been given the opportunity to comment on the bill.749 Furthermore, the bill itself allows for little public participation by communities in the approval of mining permits.750 Under the current mining law, community members have already been prevented from having a voice in the operation of one mine,751 and, if passed, the proposed bill could enable the government to legally deny public participation in other locations.752

B. Sudan

1. Hydropower Development The Merowe/Hamadab Dam on the River Nile in Northern Sudan is the largest

hydropower project under development in Africa and, when completed, is expected to produce 1,250 megawatts of electricity, roughly doubling Sudan’s current power generating capacity.753 When completed, it will be 67 meters high and will create a reservoir 174 kilometers long covering an area of 476 square kilometers.754 As part of a multinational project, Chinese and Sudanese companies are constructing the dam with funding from the China Export Import Bank, the Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development, and the Development Funds of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Abu Dhabi, and the Sultanate of Oman.755 The dam is anticipated to result in sedimentation of the resulting reservoir due to massive erosion in Ethiopia, increased evaporation of stored water, infestation by water hyacinth, and an increase of waterborne diseases.756 Due to hydropower demands, the river below the dam will fluctuate by as much as 4.9 meters, posing safety hazards to those using the river, and making it significantly more difficult to irrigate crops downstream of the dam.757

The construction of the Merowe/Hamadab Dam is projected to displace a total of 50,000 people upon completion, most of whom are poor and agriculturally dependent.758 Although affected people have requested to be resettled around the dam reservoir, the dam authority has instead resettled most groups away from the fertile Nile riverbanks in areas with less access to 749 Id. 750 Joseph Coomson, Minerals and Mining Bill to Be Defeated?, GHANIAN CHRONICLE, Nov. 1, 2005, http://www.ghanaian-chronicle.com/thestory.asp?ID=8211. 751 Gifty Annor & Martha Akpey, Bloody Gold, As Corporate Interests Clashes with Peoples’ Rights, PUBLIC AGENDA, June 20, 2005, available at 2005 WL 9815698 (discussing the Bogoso mine in southwest Ghana); see also Ghana Homepage, AngloGold Ashanti renege on dialogue with communities, Oct. 9, 2005, http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/economy/artikel.php?ID=91754. 752 See Emmanuel Akli, Gov’t Deploys Soldiers to Prestea to Prevent Illegal Mining, GHANIAN CHRONICLE, May 26, 2005, available at http://www.ghanaian-chronicle.com/thestory.asp?ID=5997. 753 INTERNATIONAL RIVERS NETWORK/THE CORNER HOUSE, A CRITICAL JUNCTURE FOR PEACE, DEMOCRACY, AND THE ENVIRONMENT: SUDAN AND THE MEROWE-HAMADAB DAM PROJECT 4 (2005), http://www.irn.org/programs/merowe/pdf/050428merowe.pdf; Environmental Groups warn over new Sudan Dam, AFRICAFILES, May 19, 2005, http://africafiles.org/article.asp?ID=8807 [hereinafter Environmental Groups]; see also Environmental Groups, supra note 753. 754 INTERNATIONAL RIVERS NETWORK/THE CORNER HOUSE, supra note 753, at 4. 755 Sudan’s Merowe/Hamadab Dam, ECA WATCH, July 6, 2005, http://www.eca-watch.org/problems/dams/IRN_sudan_merowedamjuly05.htm; see also Sudan Dam Draws Fresh Fears of Social Unrest, SUDAN TRIBUNE, May 4, 2005 [hereinafter Social Unrest], available at http://sudantribune.com/article.php3?id_article=9418. 756 Id. at 5. 757 Id. at 9. 758 Environmental Groups, supra note 753; see also INTERNATIONAL RIVERS NETWORK/THE CORNER HOUSE, supra note 753 at 4.

90

water, inciting protests from the displaced communities.759 Displacement has also led to increases in the poverty rate over the past two years.760 Displaced people are forced to live in communities with inadequate housing and sanitation and have had to pay for electricity, water, fertilizer, and the removal of sand – services the government promised to provide free of charge for the first two years.761 Displaced communities have increased health problems, including high rates of diphtheria and more virulent forms of malaria. Additionally, some concerned groups claim that the government has diverted or misappropriated much of the development funds meant to benefit displaced people.762

The region erupted in violence in November 2005, after government authorities refused to recognize community groups and to listen to relocation requests by individuals who would be affected.763 Chinese authorities occupied wells in the area, preventing residents from reaching water, and they refused to recognize local committees for negotiations.764 Dam offices on one island were set afire and destroyed.765 The situation escalated on April 22, 2006 when Sudanese government militia opened fire on a community gathering, killing three people and injuring more than fifty.766

The government’s plan to compensate displaced people also has problems that implicate the rights to work, water, and development.767 The plan imposes strict and, some say, unfair limitations on who is entitled to compensation.768 Some concerned groups also claim the compensation plan violates Sudan’s Land Acquisition Act of 1930, which requires full compensation for lands expropriated by the government.769

Finally, there have also been numerous violations of the procedural rights to participation and information. The Sudanese government has repeatedly refused to recognize locally organized committees,770 who allege that the government failed to conduct or require an adequate environmental assessment of the dam’s potential effects.771 Concerned groups argue that approval of the dam project violates Sudanese law, which requires the government’s Higher Council to review and certify an environmental assessment for projects of this magnitude.772 Additionally, some believe the dam also violates at least five of the seven Strategic Priorities of

759 Three Killed in Sudan Protest Over Nile Dam, TERRADAILY, April 23, 2006, available at http://www.terradaily.com/2006/060423102947.sxn7mwoj.html. 760 INTERNATIONAL RIVERS NETWORK/THE CORNER HOUSE, supra note 753, at 8. 761 Id. 762 Id. 763 INTERNATIONAL RIVERS NETWORK/THE CORNER HOUSE, Urgent Call for a Negotiated Agreement, Nov. 30, 2005, available at http://www.irn.org/programs/merowe/index.php?id=051130appeal.html 764 Id. 765 Id. 766 INTERNATIONAL RIVERS NETWORK/THE CORNER HOUSE , Press Release, April 22, 2006, available at http://www.irn.org/programs/merowe/index.php?id=060430merowe.html. 767 See INTERNATIONAL RIVERS NETWORK/THE CORNER HOUSE, supra note 753, at 7-8; Sudan’s Merowe/Hamadab Dam, supra note 755. 768 Environmental Groups, supra note 753. 769 See id. 770 See supra note 763 771 Id. at 5. 772 Id.

91

the World Commission on Dams, as well as the World Bank policies on Environmental Assessment, Natural Habitats, Involuntary Resettlement, and Cultural Property.773

C. Ivory Coast

1. Toxic Sludge Dumping At least ten people died and 85,000 sought medical help for nausea, diarrhea, swollen stomachs, skin damage, breathlessness, and headaches, following illegal dumping of toxic sludge at various locations around the Ivory Coast city of Abidjan in August, 2006.774 A Greek-owned, Panamanian-flagged tanker, Probo Koala, leased by Trafigura, a Netherlands-based global commodities trading company, had stopped in Amsterdam on July 2, 2006, to unload sludge from the ship, where workers alerted company officials to an unusual stench emanating from the waste. Trafigura, whose 2005 income was $28 billion dollars, declined to spend the $300,000 estimated price to process the waste. The ship continued on to Estonia, where it took on oil products. After a brief stop in Nigeria, it then continued to the Ivory Coast,775 where an Ivorien company was hired to process the waste. The company was unequipped to do so, however, and the company’s trucks allegedly dumped the waste in at least eighteen sites around Abidjan.776 An Ivoirien government investigation found that the company only came into being after the Probo Koala left Holland, and “had all the appearances of a shell company created for the circumstances.”777

Citing the Ivoirien disaster, the European Parliament issued a resolution on October 26, 2006, calling for stronger laws to prevent these disasters, and calling for investigations of the responsible parties for this and other instances of illegal dumping of waste in developing countries.778 The Resolution noted the difficulties of enforcing environmental infractions when multiple nations (here, the Netherlands, Greece, and Panama) are involved in a single, polluting, business venture.779 The Resolution also notes that this is a particularly egregious instance of a more prevalent problem in Africa, adding that Greenpeace has documented eighty African sites where waste from developed countries has been dumped.780

773 Sudan’s Merowe/Hamadab Dam, supra note 755. 774 Lydia Polgreen & Marlise Simons, “Global sludge ends in tragedy for Ivory Coast,” New York Times, September 28, 2006, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/02/world/africa/02ivory.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5070&en=f9326c9f4c025bc5&ex=1171688400; Lydia Polgreen, “Neglect and fraud blamed for toxic dumping in Ivory Coast,” New York Times, November 24, 2006, available at http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F20612FD385A0C778EDDA80994DE404482. 775 Polgreen & Simmons, Sept. 28,2006. 776 Id. 777 Polgreen, Nov. 24, 2006. 778 European Parliament, Resolution on export of toxic waste to Africa, October 26, 2006, available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2006-0457+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN. 779 Id. 780 Id.

92

VI. ASIA

A. Indonesia

1. Mine Tailing Pollution781 Newmont Mining Corporation, based in Denver, Colorado, owned and operated the Minahasa Raya mine in North Sulawesi, Indonesia from 1996 until August 31, 2004, when the mine closed, all the while discharging mining waste into Buyat Bay.782 Although the Minahasa Raya mine has been inactive since 2004, people living around the mine, and particularly near Buyat Bay, have allegedly continued to suffer negative health effects as a result of Newmont’s past operations and toxic waste disposal methods, violating their right to health.783 There are also claims that the waste disposal techniques utilized at the Newmont mine had drastic impacts on Buyat Bay’s fishing industry, as fish and other sea animals are said to have been contaminated with arsenic and mercury.784 Harm to water quality and the local fishing industry deprives the people of their right to livelihood, culture and water.

In September 2004, the Indonesian government conducted independent tests of Newmont’s tailings, concluding that Newmont engaged in illegal environmental practices.785 As a result, later that year, the Indonesian government charged six of Newmont’s top executives with violating Indonesian environmental laws. However, on July 6, 2005, the Indonesian prosecutor dropped the charges against five of the six executives for lack of material evidence linking the individuals to the discharge of the pollutants.786 The remaining criminal defendant, Richard Ness, is the highest executive of Newmont’s Indonesian branch. The proceedings against Ness, which are being held before a five judge panel, began on October 14, 2005.787 In September, 2006, Richard Ness testified, maintaining that "for the most part we only discharged roughly 10 percent of the allowable mercury and 7 percent of the permitted arsenic," and that the mine was not responsible for pollution or illness in the environment.788 If convicted, Ness could face up to ten years in prison and an $88,000 fine.

The Indonesian government also filed a civil case against Newmont in March 2005 seeking compensation for the same pollution alleged in the case against Ness.789 The South Jakarta District Court rejected the civil case in November 2005, saying the suit should be settled

781 This case study was included in the issue paper prepared for the Commission’s 59th, 60th, and 61st Sessions. 782 Jane Perlez and Evelyn Rusli, Spurred by Illness, Indonesians Lash Out at U.S. Mining Giant, NEW YORK TIMES, Sept. 8, 2004, at A1, available at http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/tncs/2004/0908newmont.htm. 783 Indonesian mother blames Newmont toxic waste for daughter's death, AFX NEWS LIMITED (London), Oct. 14, 2005, available at http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx/2005/10/14/afx2277489.html. 784 Miedy Pakasi, Mining executive goes on trial in Indonesia, THE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, Aug. 7, 2005, available at http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/business/12320471.htm. 785 Wildlifenews, Indonesians Demand Gold Mine Clean-up, Sept. 11, 2004, http://www.naturalworldtours.co.uk/articles2004/september/september1104k.htm. 786 Gargi Chakrabarty, Charges Against 5 Dropped, Indonesia Pursues Case Against 1 Newmont Exec, ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS (Denver), July 6, 2005, available at www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/business/article/0,1299,DRMN_4_3905704,00.html.787 Indonesia govt wants community devt projects in out-of-court deal with Newmont, AFX INTERNATIONAL FOCUS, Dec. 27, 2005. 788 Zakki Hakim, Exec takes the stand, ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS, (Sept. 2, 2006), available at http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/energy/article/0,2777,DRMN_23914_4963527,00.html. 789 Id.

93

through international arbitration. The government decided not to appeal and on February 15, 2006, the parties reached an agreement. Newmont Mining agreed to pay the Indonesian government $30 million over the next 10 years to settle the allegations.790 The funds will pay for ten years of environmental monitoring managed by a six-person panel of “respected scientists in their fields.”791 Newmont and the Indonesian government will each select three of the six panel members. Environmental monitoring is estimated to cost around $500,000 annually, with the remainder of the $3 million devoted to community development around the former mine.792

B. Burma (Myanmar)

1. Damming the Salween River The Salween River begins in Tibet and flows for 2,400 kilometers through southern China, Burma (Myanmar), and Thailand before it empties into the Gulf of Martaban in the Andaman Sea. In May 2005, Myanmar and Thailand signed a memorandum of understanding to conduct feasibility studies for the development of six hydroelectric dams on Myanmar’s section of the Salween River.793 In December of that year, the governments signed an agreement to begin construction on the dams in 2007.794 Despite protests by environmental and human rights groups, as well as lack of involvement from international development banks, MDX Group, an influential Thai business group, signed a $6 million agreement in April 2006 to undertake construction on one of the dams. Mass relocations of villagers have taken place in recent years, and construction of housing for workers at two other dam sides inside Myanmar has already begun. Meanwhile a road is being cut through a national park in Thailand to reach Weigyi, on the river frontier.795

Environmental and human rights NGOs have expressed concerns over the dams’ impact on both people and the environment.796 The largest of the project’s six dams will be the biggest dam in Southeast Asia, and will cause flooding in numerous areas of socio-economic and ecological importance.797 The project is predicted to flood at least one-third of the Salween National Park and a 300-kilometer stretch of land on both sides of the river in Myanmar and Thailand, forcing the removal of tens of thousands of people and submerging hundreds of villages.798 More than twenty percent of the land in Mae Hong Son province and thirty percent of the land in the Pai district - now a pristine tourist spot - will likely be under water.799

790 See Newmont executive says Indonesia government agrees to drop lawsuit, MARKETWATCH, Feb. 16, 2006, available at http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7BA96C2CB2%2DC5BC%2D4BD4%2D8DD9%2DA7A306F0054A%7D&siteid=google&keyword. 791 Id. 792 Id. 793 Thailand, Myanmar Revive Salween River Basin Dams Proposal to Generate Electricity, THAI PRESS REPORTS, May 25, 2005. 794 Press Release: Proposed Salween Dams Revive Development Nightmare for Karenni in Burma, Rivers Watch East & Southeast Asia, March 14, 2006, available at http://www.rwesa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=61&Itemid=15 . 795 Gray, Denis, Villagers fear dams on last untamed river, ASSOCIATED PRESS, June 4, 2006. 796 Myanmar (Burma) Environmental Group Oppose Dam on Salween River, THAI PRESS REPORTS, Jan. 5, 2006. 797 Maxmilian Wechsler, Senator Strikes a Different Chord, BANGKOK POST (Thailand), Aug. 14, 2005. 798 Id. 799 Id.

94

The flooding of hundreds of villages will deprive residents of the rights to land, property and, for many of the most traditional and land-based ethnic groups, the right to culture. The dams will also significantly alter the basin’s natural ecosystems, causing declines in fish populations that people depend on for food, and inhibiting transportation and irrigation, thus implicating the right to work. Moreover, the agreement to construct the dams involves the Myanmar government, which has a history of and reputation for secrecy and human rights abuses.800 For example, the stretch of the river that is most affected by the proposed dams winds through traditional Karen lands.801 The Karen people are an ethnic minority group that has long been persecuted by the Burmese government and has long fought Rangoon’s military junta. Damming these lands raises serious concerns over the Karen people’s rights to culture, property, and their way of life.

Several NGOs are concerned that the government of Myanmar is not incorporating the needs of, or in any way consulting with, the people affected by the project. Access to information regarding the project, including an honest assessment of potential environmental damage,802 or outside media reporting of any mistreatments or human rights violations that people are suffering as a result of the Salween River Dams Project,803 is also being denied. As such, the right to information has been violated.

C. China

1. Chemical Spill in Harbin On November 13, 2005, a chemical plant owned by energy giant PetroChina exploded in

Jilin, China, northeast of Beijing, killing five workers and injuring seventy.804 The explosion caused 100 tons of benzene and nitrobenzene to be released into the Songhua River, a major waterway in northeastern China.805 The chemicals can be very dangerous if inhaled or ingested in large concentrations, and nitrobenzene is a carcinogen believed to cause leukemia.806 The 50 mile toxic slick floated 165 miles downstream to the metropolitan area of Harbin, a city of nine million people.807 The benzene level in the drinking water for the city of Harbin was thirty times the allowable level, forcing schools to close and the water supply to be shut down for five days.808 The benzene and nitrobenzene will also sink to the bottom of the river and be absorbed 800 Marwaan Macan-Markar, Politics: Planned Thai-Burma Dam Raises Fears of Human Rights Abuses, IPS-INTER PRESS SERVICE/GLOBAL INFORMATION NETWORK, Dec. 17, 2005. 801 Amy Kazmin, Asia ponders environmental price of hydro power: Most often it is the rural poor who pay the price when rivers are dammed or diverted to make electricity, FINANCIAL TIMES ASIA, June 7, 2004. 802 Macan-Markar, supra note 800; see also Unethical, illegal dams in Burma, THE NATION (Thailand), Dec. 9, 2005. 803 Supalak Ganjanakhundee, Reporting on Dams in Dictator-Run Countries, NEIMAN REPORTS, Apr. 1, 2005, available at http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/05-1NRspring/50-52V59N1.pdf. 804 There’s No Future in Secrecy, S. CHINA MORNING POST, Nov. 30, 2005; see also A Slick of Lies, WASHINGTON POST, Nov. 30, 2005, at A22. 805 Id.; see also Even China Can't Hide a Toxic River, NEWSWEEK, Dec. 5, 2005, at 41 [hereinafter Even China]; see also Craig Simons, Haphazard Growth Sets China on Deadly Path, ATLANTA-JOURNAL CONSTITUTION, Nov. 29, 2005, at 1A. 806 China's Reluctance to Come Clean; China's toxic spill, ECONOMIST.COM, Nov. 29, 2005. 807 China’s Environmental Challenge, JAPAN TIMES, Nov. 30, 2005; see also China Progress Turns Dangerous; Ignoring Weak Environmental Laws Can Only Lead to More National Disasters, BUFFALO NEWS (New York), Nov. 28, 2005; see also A Slick of Lies, supra note 804. 808 China’s Environmental Challenge, supra note 807.; see also Even China, supra note 805.

95

into the riverbed and the sediment, which will gradually release the chemical over time.809 The fifty mile slick continued downriver into Russia’s Amur River, 810 threatening the drinking water of over one million residents in small villages, as well as in Khabarovsk, a city of 580,000 people.811 The effects of the spill thus undermine the rights to health and clean water.

Both PetroChina officials and local government officials covered up the existence of the spill, violating local residents’ right to information, and exacerbating violations of the right to health. When the explosion first occurred, PetroChina claimed that the explosion had not resulted in any pollution, and government officials for Jilin province, where the plant is located, waited five or six days before notifying officials in Harbin.812 Although the city of Harbin shut off the water supply, it did not inform residents of the reason for two days, instead telling them that it was for routine maintenance.813 As a result, 400,000 residents who rely on the river for their drinking water drank water contaminated with the toxic chemicals.814 Furthermore, reporters’ attempts to expose information about the cover-up were met with government orders to stop investigating and instead to use information released by the official New China News Agency,815 further violating the right to information, and also violating the right to freedom of expression. In June, 2006, a new Chinese law was proposed which would require both domestic and foreign news groups to seek state approval before reporting disasters and accidents, further slowing citizens’ access to information.816

The spill also resulted, even months after the event, in tensions between Russian and Chinese officials, as effects from the pollution continued to be seen in the neighboring Russian province of Khabarovsk. In July, 2006, Khabarovsk governor Viktor Ishayev issued a statement demanding that China take responsibility for cleaning up the Amur River.817 Fishing and swimming in the river was banned by Russian authorities until the pollution has been cleaned up, because of fear of dangers to human health.818

After two more chemical spills within a month of the Songhua River spill - one along the Yellow River in northern China, and the other on a tributary of the Yangtze River in southern China's Hunan Province - the central Chinese government announced plans in January 2006 to spend US$ 3 billion to clean up the Songhua River.819 Two days later, the State Council (China’s cabinet) announced a new national emergency response plan, in reaction to the Songhua River spill.820 The response plan requires that incidents threatening public health be reported to the State Council within four hours, and that the public be given timely and accurate information through the Chinese news media.821 If this emergency plan and clean up are effective, they will 809 Harbin River Clean-Up 'Will Take Years', FINANCIAL TIMES (London), Nov. 29, 2005, at 8. 810 China’s Environmental Challenge, supra note 807. 811 Id. 812 There’s No Future in Secrecy, supra note 804. 813 China's Reluctance to Come Clean; China's toxic spill, supra note 806. 814 There’s No Future in Secrecy, supra note 804; see also A Slick of Lies, supra note 804. 815 A Slick of Lies, supra note 804. 816 “Russia Demands China River Clean-up”, RADIO-FREE ASIA, July 17, 2006, available at http://www.rfa.org/english/features/lelyveld/2006/07/17/china_russia/. 817 See supra note 816 818 Id. 819 Jim Yardley, China Chemical Spills Spur Plan to Guard Water Supply, THE NEW YORK TIMES, Jan. 11, 2006, at A16. 820 Id. 821 Id.

96

serve to alleviate at least some of the threats to the rights of Chinese people to health, life, clean water and work that have been violated by spills such as the one at Harbin. However, the plan does not address the causes of the spills, thus leaving the door open for continued violations of such rights by the chemical industry in China.822

2. Three Gorges Dam823 The Three Gorges Dam, along the Yangtze River in China, is the largest hydroelectric dam in the world, and will raise the water level of the Yangtze River 175 meters when it is finished in 2009.824 The higher water level will cause flooding of 632 square kilometers of inhabited land, inundating 365 townships in 21 counties, and forcing the relocation of 1.2 million people.825 This forced relocation amounts to a large-scale deprivation of the rights to work and to culture.

People in the reservoir area have complained that the government’s resettlement program is unfair and plagued by corruption. Activists have also insisted that public consultation was absent from the approval debate for the dam.826 Additionally, some reports indicate that relocated people have received only a portion of the promised compensation, and that the Chinese government has come down particularly hard on local organizers and protesters.827 Wang Xidong, for example, was arrested on April 24, 2004 for organizing a demonstration of about 500 people, and was sentenced to five years in prison.828 In 1989, journalist and Goldman Prize recipient Dai Qing was banned from publishing in China and jailed for 10 months after criticizing the Three Gorges project.829 These arrests violate the rights to information and participation.

In addition to concerns related to the resettlement of people living in the flood zone, there are also numerous concerns over the environmental impacts of the dam, and the drastic effects on the people who live nearby and depend upon the Yangtze River. For five months of every year, the reservoir behind the Three Gorges Dam will be lowered about 100 feet for flood control, allowing 300 square kilometers of land to re-emerge around the reservoir, along with all of the sewage, silt, industrial pollutants and rubbish that will have accumulated.830 In some areas, these 822 According to Elizabeth C. Economy, the author of ''The River Runs Black,'' a recent book on China's environmental challenges, chemical spills in China are extremely frequent and widespread. Id. Government studies in China show that 70% of the country’s lakes and waterways are polluted, and such water pollution is blamed for high cancer rates in villages along Chinese waterways. Id. It has also been said that chemical factories commonly dump wastewater into rivers and that Chinese officials lack the political power to stop the dumping. Id. 823 This case study was included in the issue paper prepared for the Commission’s 55th, 59th, 60th, and 61st Sessions. 824 China Highlights, Some Facts of the Three Gorges Dam Project, http://www.chinahighlights.com/yangtzecruise/facts.htm (last visited Mar. 1, 2006). 825 Id. 826 Jonathan Watts, China's 15-year lesson in how not to build a dam, THE GUARDIAN, May 20, 2006, available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1779337,00.html#article_continue. 827 Kelly Haggart, Five years in Wuhan Women's Prison for Requesting Fair Treatment, THREE GORGES PROBE NEWS SERV. (Canada), Oct. 4, 2005, available at http://www.threegorgesprobe.org/tgp/index.cfm?DSP=content&ContentID=13797. 828 Id. 829 Goldman Environmental Prize, Dai Qing, http://www.goldmanprize.org/recipients/recipientProfile.cfm?recipientID=43 (last visited Jan. 25, 2006). 830 Steven Ribet, Breeding Ground, THE STANDARD (Hong Kong), Sept. 10, 2005, available at http://www.threegorgesprobe.org/tgp/index.cfm?DSP=content&ContentID=13693.

97

“waste bogs” will be more than three feet thick and will be optimal breeding grounds for flies, mosquitoes, bacteria and parasites.831 Many of the people relocated by the dam will be building their new homes just above this fluctuation zone, and urban areas will likely border vast stretches of fecal bogs. The threat of resulting disease and parasites has led the local government of Kai county to warn of epidemics that could spread across China, threatening millions of people’s right to health.832 Also, upstream water quality has already deteriorated because the slow flow of the river does not allow it to clean itself. This is problematic, as more than half of the sewage from the Chongqing municipality is released into the river untreated.833 As a result, the right to health of those living nearby has and will continue to be severely implicated.

Construction on the main dam structure across the Yangtze River was completed in May, 2006, with the entire project expected to be completed in 2008 and fully operational by 2009.834

D. India

1. Battle Between Rural Communities and Coca-Cola Bottling Plants

Rural communities in India claim that Cola-Cola’s bottling operations in India create severe water shortages in the areas where the plants are located, pollute the groundwater and soil around their facilities, give farmers toxic byproducts to use as fertilizer, and sell drinks that contain high levels of pesticides, such as DDT.835 These practices implicate the rights to health, clean water and livelihood.

The Coca-Cola company has long faced controversy for its practices in India. In August, 2006, for example, the Delhi-based Center for Science and the Environment (CSE) found that pesticide residues in samples of Coke and Pepsi were an average of 24 times above the norms set by the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), violating Indians’ right to health. 836 In response, six of India’s 28 states have banned the sale of Pepsi and Coca-Cola products, and the state of Kerala imposed a total ban on the production and sale of the products.837

Coca-Cola’s largest and most technologically advanced plant in India is located in the village of Plachimada, which is populated primarily by tribal farmers.838 The arrival of the Coca-Cola bottling plant in 2001 negatively impacted the lives of community members, who began protesting the practices of the plant in April of 2002.839 Combined with an ongoing drought, the heavy water usage of the bottling plant was blamed for causing many of the wells in Plachimada to go dry, adversely affecting the livelihood of the villagers, many of whom are farmers and

831 Id. 832 Id. 833 See supra note 826. 834 Stan Grant, Three Gorges Dam Wall Complete, CNN, May 26, 2006, available at http://www.chinahighlights.com/yangtzecruise/facts.htm. 835 Mark Williams, Tribal Rage Bubbles Over as Coca-Cola Defends Water Use, S. CHINA MORNING POST at 16, Feb. 16, 2005; see also INDIA RESOURCE CENTER, COCA-COLA: DESTROYING LIVELIHOODS AND COMMUNITIES, http://www.indiaresource.org/campaigns/coke/2004/Brochure.pdf (last visited Mar. 1, 2006). 836 Sudha Ramachandran, India: What's your poison?, ASIA TIMES, August 17, 2006, available at http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HH17Df01.html. 837 Id. 838 See Williams, supra note 835. 839 Id.; see also INDIA RESOURCE CENTER, supra note 835.

98

depend on the well water to irrigate their crops.840 In addition, the Central Pollution Control Board found that the bio-solid waste which Coca-Cola provided the local farmers for use as fertilizer contained toxic metals including cadmium and lead, which triggered various skin diseases after the metals leached into the soil, thus violating the right to health. 841

In December 2003, villagers brought suit against Coca-Cola’s Indian subsidiary, Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages, in order to stop the plant from withdrawing more water.842 The court ruled on December 6, 2003 that Coca-Cola “has no legal right to extract this much of natural wealth.”843 However, the order was overruled by the Kerala High Court on April 7, 2005, with the court supporting the right of Coca-Cola to extract water from its property.844 The failure of the Kerala High Court to recognize the importance of ensuring that Coca-Cola does not drain the areas surrounding its plants of water jeopardize villagers’ rights to health, water, and livelihood.

E. Kazakhstan

1. Nuclear Contamination Four hundred fifty six nuclear detonations and dozens more “model experiments” performed by the Soviet state over a span of forty years in the central Asian Republic of Kazakhstan have left the country highly polluted by nuclear contamination.845 Soviet nuclear testing has been equal to the explosion of 20,000 Hiroshima bombs and has resulted in radioactive contamination of the country’s crops, land, and livestock, violating Kazakhs’ rights to life, livelihood and property.846 Currently, Kazakhstan holds more than 230 million tons of radioactive waste at 529 locations, awaiting safe disposal.847 The testing and lingering radioactive contamination continues to cause health problems among citizens, violating their rights to health and life.848

Experts say that nearly one of every ten Kazakh citizens is directly affected by the Soviet nuclear legacy from threats such as dust from plutonium-laced (and thus carcinogenic) soil.849 Semipalatinsk, for example, was the world's second-largest nuclear military-industrial complex and the site of nearly 500 nuclear test explosions before its closure in early 1990s. The radiation from tests conducted there has affected 1.6 million people.850

840 See Williams, supra note 835. 841 Amit Srivastava, Arrogance and Impunity - Coca-Cola in India, COMMONDREAMS, August 10, 2006, available at http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0810-31.htm. 842 See id. 843 Dr. Vandana Shiva, The People of Plachimada vs. Coca-Cola, NAVDANYA, May 28, 2005, http://www.navdanya.org/articles/plachimada-vs-coke.htm. 844 Id. 845 Richard Stone, Kazakhstan: Plutonium Fields Forever, 300 SCIENCE 1220 (2003). 846 Goldman Prize, Recipients, http://goldmanprize.org/node/75 (last visited on Jan. 31, 2006). 847 Nuclear Threat Initiative, Kazakhstan Nuclear Facilities- Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Kazakhstan/Nuclear/4278_4306.html (last visited on Jan. 31, 2006). 848 Goldman Prize, supra note 846. 849 Id.; Stone, supra note 845. 850 Gulnoza Saidazimova, Kazakhstan: Government Pushing Nuclear Power Despite Public Fears, RADIO FREE EUROPE, February 24, 2006, available at http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/02/101c69af-890b-4caa-8521-1505aef9564e.html.

99

Making matters worse, many of the nuclear weapons testing sites remain unknown. Secrecy surrounding the experiments has contributed to difficulty finding their exact locations, and crude maps fail to detail nuclear contamination within testing areas.851 Russia has denied citizens’ right to access to information by withholding details about the nature of the nuclear experiments that occurred. 852

International concerns about nuclear non-proliferation have led to remediation at some sites. Officials at the U.S. Department of Defense have concerns about terrorist access to dispersed plutonium that could be used to create a “dirty bomb.”853 In October 2005, the U.S-based nonproliferation group Nuclear Threat Initiative and Kazakh officials announced a project to eliminate weapons-grade nuclear fuel that could be used to make more than twenty atomic bombs in Kazakhstan.854 Despite this progress, a great deal of nuclear material continues to pollute vast stretches of Kazakhstan, and poses a continuing threat to citizens’ rights to life and health. Furthermore, the government has expressed hopes of developing the nuclear energy industry as an alternative energy source, threatening the health of future Kazakhs.855

F. Lebanon

1. Oil Leak Following raids on Israel by Lebanon-based Hezbollah, Israel’s retaliatory strikes

resulted in significant environmental damage in Lebanon.856 Most seriously, when Israeli bombs hit a power plant storage tank at Jieh, 10-15,000 tons of oil leaked into the Mediterranean, contaminated more than 30 km of Lebanese coastline, and threatened marine life, beaches, and ports elsewhere in the region.857 The spill – described by environmentalists as the worst environmental disaster in Lebanon’s history858 – threatened Lebanese residents’ rights to life and health.

European nations and UNEP pledged monetary and technical assistance to mitigate the environmental destruction. The European Commissioner, responding to the crisis, explicitly linked the “enormous human suffering” caused by warfare to “the significant environmental

851 Id. 852 Id. 853 Stone, supra note 845. 854 Press Release, Nuclear Threat Initiative, Government of Kazakhstan and NTI Mart Success of HEU Blend-Down Project; Material Could Have Been Used to Make Up To Two Dozen Nuclear Bombs (Oct. 8, 2005), http://www.nti.org/c_press/release_Kaz_100805.pdf. 855 See supra note 850 856 See Press Release, European Comm’n, “Commission activates civil protection mechanism to help cope with major oil spill,” (July 28, 2006), available at http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/1078&type=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en, last visited February 13, 2006. 857 See Press Release, European Comm’n, “Lebanon/Environment: International co-ordination efforts to contain oil spill in Lebanon are under way,” (August 17, 2006), available at http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/1106&type=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en. 858 See European Comm’n, Press Release, “EU assists Lebanon in managing the environmental impact of the Middle East crisis, (August 11, 2006), available at http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/1098&type=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en , last visited February 13, 2006.

100

destruction caused by it.”859 In addition to imperiling endangered wildlife such as the green turtle, the spill risked destroying fishers’ livelihood, and posed numerous human health risks, particularly because the fuel spilled contained benzene and other carcinogens.860 The spill’s sum total of effects implicated the rights to life, work, and development.

VII. EUROPE

A. Russia

1. Oil and Gas Projects on Sakhalin Island861 Oil and natural gas extraction projects on Sakhalin Island off the east coast of Russia

have been under development since 1994.862 That year, Shell, Mitsubishi and Mitsui, together with Sakhalin Energy Investment Company, signed an agreement with the Russian government to develop Sakhalin II.863 Shell also began negotiations for financial backing for the expansion of the project from public institutions including the U.S.’s Export-Import Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.864 Due to environmental concerns, no bank has offered supported for this second phase of the project.

Phase 1 of the Sakhalin II development involved installing a large drilling platform in the waters off the northwest coast of Sakhalin Island.865 Since then, locals have reported a reduction in both the quality and the quantity of saffron cod fishing, which is an important part of the local diet.866 This environmental degradation threatens citizens’ right to health, food and work. The Sakhalin II project has also destroyed roads and threatened water reservoirs, beaches, and other public infrastructure, all of which implicate the rights to clean water and a clean and safe environment.867 Medical services on the island are stretched to their breaking point, implicating the right to health.868 Construction of pipelines and infrastructure to transport the oil and gas also threatens Sakhalin’s fragile ecosystems, which include abundant wild salmon runs, other rich fisheries, and the only known feeding grounds of one of the world’s most gravely endangered whale populations, the Western Pacific Gray Whale.869

859 See Press Release, European Comm’n, Commission activates civil protection mechanism to help Lebanon cope with major oil spill (July 28, 2006), available at http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/1078&type=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en, last visited February 13, 2006. 860 Anthee Carassava, “The Mideast Crisis: The Environment; UN Pledges $64 Million for Cleanup of Oil Spill. NEW YORK TIMES, August 18, 2006, available at http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F00C1EF73F5A0C7B8DDDA10894DE404482 861 This case study was included in the issue paper prepared for the Commission’s 61st session. 862 Pacific Environment, Shell Oil on Sakhalin: Putting Profits Before People and the Environment, http://pacificenvironment.org/article.php?list=type&type=63 (last visited Jan. 31, 2006). 863 Pacific Environment, Sakhalin Oil & Gas: Introduction, http://pacificenvironment.org/article.php?id=247 (last visited Jan. 31, 2006). 864 Dmitry Lisitsy, Sakhalin Environment Watch, Presentation to the World Affairs Council, (March 6, 2007). 865 Id. 866 Id. 867 Id. 868 Pacific Environment, Impacts on Sakhalin's Infrastructure, http://pacificenvironment.org/article.php?id=251 (last visited Jan. 31, 2006). 869 Shell Oil on Sakhalin, supra note Error! Bookmark not defined..

101

After numerous attempts at engaging in a constructive dialogue with Sakhalin Energy, the indigenous people of Sakhalin Island, other local people, and even the Sakhalin Regional Governor Ivan Malakhov staged protests at construction sites in January 2005 to object to the industry's negative impacts on the community's environment and quality of life.870 The Indigenous Congress of Sakhalin has expressed concerns regarding effects of the construction activities on Sakhalin’s natural resources, such as reduction in fish stocks, reindeer pastures and forest animal populations.871 However, the industry and the Sakhalin government responded to the protests with inaction and misrepresentation of the potential benefits and impacts of the oil and gas projects.872 International NGOs have organized protests against Credit Suisse First Boston Bank (Credit Suisse) for its funding support of the oil and gas development.873 It has been said that the island is developing into a caricature of petro-state inequality,874 implicating the right to property and to participation. Almost all of Russia’s share of the revenues from energy deals on Sakhalin Island goes to Moscow, and foreign oil companies reap massive profits while providing little benefit to the local community. 875

Russian environmentalists won a legal victory against Shell in December 2005 when a Russian court of appeals overturned a lower court decision not to penalize Shell for environmental damage caused by an oil and gas terminal.876 Construction and operation of the terminal involved the dumping of more than two million tons of dredging materials into the Aniva Bay, which caused widespread damage to fish habitat and spawning grounds, damaging the health and economic conditions of inhabitants of Sakhalin Island.877 The case was remanded to a new judge of the Sakhalin municipal court.878

In August, 2006, half of the project shares were sold to the Russian company Gazprom, making them the largest shareholder.879 In a promising move later that month, the deputy head of the Russian Ministry of Natural Resources’ watchdog body, announced his intention to take legal action to halt the oil development on Sakhalin Island due to environmental concerns.880 While local watchdog groups are wary that enforcement of recent decisions may not occur, Gazprom has agreed to engage in meetings with groups, and the government has taken into

870 Pacific Environment, Russia Program: Impacts on Indigenous Communities, http://pacificenvironment.org/article.php?id=252 (last visited Jan. 31, 2006); see also Pacific Environment, Defense of Sakhalin against big oil gains momentum, Jan. 30, 2006, http://pacificenvironment.org/article.php?id=910. 871 Russia Program: Impacts on Indigenous Communities, supra note 870. 872 Id. 873 Id. 874 Russia and its regions, The Economist, Sept. 1, 2005, available at http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displayStory.cfm?story_id=4352042. 875 Id. 876 Pacific Environment, Legal Violations Remain at Sakhalin II LNG Plant, Dec. 7, 2005, http://pacificenvironment.org/article.php?id=560. 877 Id. 878 Id. 879 Dmitry Lisitsy, Sakhalin Environment Watch, Presentation to the World Affairs Council, (March 6, 2007). 880 Pacific Environment, Russia Mounts Legal Challenge to Sakhalin II, August 10, 2006, available at http://pacificenvironment.org/article.php?id=1819. See also Allen Baker, Russia Using Environmental Challenges, PETROLEUM NEWS, August 12, 2006, available at http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2006/08/12/petroleum-news-russia-using-environmental-challenges/

102

account watchdog groups’ concerns in the development and enforcement of environmental laws.881

B. Romania

1. Gold Mining near Rosia Montana882

Rosia Montana, a small town in the Apuseni Mountains of West-Central Romania, is the country’s oldest documented mining settlement, and has been recognized by Romania as a site of historic value.883 In 2000, the government granted an exploration license to Canadian-based Gabriel Resources to develop a gold and silver mine in and around Rosia Montana. Under the mining plan proposed by Gabriel Resources, 2,000 people would be forced to relocate, 900 homes would be torn down, and archaeological and natural sites would be destroyed, violating residents’ right to culture.884

If the mine is developed, the rights of local people to health and clean water will also be threatened. The company plans to use hazardous cyanide compounds to separate the gold and silver from the rock.885 The mine’s waste rock would then form a 185 meter dam across the Corna valley, requiring relocation of the valley’s residents.886 A hazardous cyanide storage pond, together with tons of heavy metal-laden waste, would cover as many as 600 hectares (nearly 1,500 acres).887 As a result, the mine puts the nearby Aries River - the most important water source in the region - at serious risk of pollution and threatens the health and lives of an estimated 100,000 people.888

The European Parliament sent a delegation to the site in October 2003 and again in December 2004.889 The delegation found the project to be in clear breach of various EU directives and the European Parliament responded by adopting Article 41, which expressed concern that the development poses a serious environmental threat to the entire region and commits the Parliament to careful project monitoring. 890

Despite these problems, Gabriel Resources pushed forward with planning for the project. On May 15, 2006, Rosia Gold Mine Corporation submitted an Environmental Impact

881 Id. 882 This case study was included in the issue paper prepared for the Commission’s 60th Session. 883 Mining Watch Canada, Romanian Government Does Not Support Proposed Mine at Rosia Montana, http://www.miningwatch.ca/index.php?/Romania_en/Romanian_Government_ (last visited Jan. 31, 2006); see also Press Release, Rosia Montana, Rosia Montana: Tacit Approval, Feb. 1, 2006 [hereinafter Rosia Montana: Tacit Approval], http://www.rosiamontana.org/. 884 Goldman Prize, Recipients, http://goldmanprize.org/node/158 (last visited Oct. 19, 2005); See generally Mining Watch Canada, Romania http://www.miningwatch.ca/index.php?/Romania_en (last visited Jan. 31, 2006). 885 Id. 886 Id. 887 Id. 888 Id. 889 Goldman Prize, supra note 884. 890 Id.

103

Assessment (EIA) and received “tacit approval” from the government.891 On June 5, 2006 the Environmental Ministry announced the inception of the Public Consultation Procedure.892

The government of neighboring Hungary (whose environment is also threatened by the harmful cyanide mining process) expressed its disapproval of the project in July, 2006.893 In August, numerous Romanian NGOs and citizens also voiced opposition to the project to the Minister for the Environment and Minister for European Integration, in response to the EIA. The groups highlighted that the public was not well-informed about the impacts and risks associated with the mine development, and that the consultation process was a disingenuous public relations approach.894 In October 2006, Hungary’s Ministry for the Environment officially asked the Romanian authorities not to grant the environmental accord for the Rosia Montana proposal due to problems with the EIA report.895

Local non-governmental organization Alburnus Maior has led much of the opposition to the mine.896 The group filed an official complaint before the Århus Compliance Committee against Romania’s Ministry for the Environment.897 In response to this complaint, the Romanian authorities changed the governmental decision on the EIA procedure for public and private projects to include public participation at the scoping stage.898 The new governmental decision was published on September 25, 2006 and entered into force 60 days later.899

Despite some developments, the area is still threatened by the development of the mine. If Gabriel Resources is permitted to construct and operate the mine despite such widespread opposition and without proper involvement of local people, the rights of local people to health, clean water, and public participation will be violated.

VIII. ISLAND NATIONS

A. Australia

1. Hazelwood Coal Fired Power Plant Hazelwood Power Station supplies 25% of the energy for Victoria in southeast Australia. The station was scheduled to be decommissioned, but in September 2005, it received approval to

891 Goldman Prize, supra note 884..; see also Rosia Montana: Tacit Approval, supra note Error! Bookmark not defined.; see also Rosia Montana: EIA Chronology, available at http://www.rosiamontana.ro/index_en.shtml?x=1846&cmd[77]=x-77-1846 (last visited August 23, 2006). 892 Id. 893 Hungary Says Romania Should Stop Goldmine Project, Reuters, August 1, 2006, available at http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?view=CN&symbol=GBU.TO&storyID=219754+01-Aug-2006+RTRS&type=qcna (last visited August 23, 2006). 894 See EIA Chronology, Salvati Rosia Montana, available at http://www.rosiamontana.ro/index_en.shtml?x=1846&cmd[77]=x-77-1846 (last visited March 5, 2007). 895 See “Comments made within the framework of the Espoo procedure in relation to the environmental impact study (EIS) of the planned opening of the Rosia Montana mine, compiled by the Hungarian Ministry of Environment andWater on the basis of government and non-governmental organizations”, (Oct. 6, 2006), available at http://www.rosiamontana.org/documents/pdf/comments_Hungarian_MoEW_ENG.pdf. 896 Rosia Montana.org, http://www.rosiamontana.org/ (last visited Jan. 31, 2006). 897See EIA Chronology, Salvati Rosia Montana, available at http://www.rosiamontana.ro/index_en.shtml?x=1846&cmd[77]=x-77-1846 (last visited March 5, 2007). 898 Id. 899 Id.

104

expand its production and to extend the life of the plant until 2030.900 In an effort to comply with a 2004 ruling on greenhouse gas emissions,901 the government imposed an emissions cap on Hazelwood along with the expansion approval.902 The emissions cap calls for a reduction of 34 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions over the life of the power station,903 but the restriction will reduce Hazelwood’s lifespan by only two years if it continues at its present emission rate.904 The expansion permit also requires Hazelwood to use new technology, but only where it is economically viable to do so.905

Hazelwood’s emissions have increased fifty-six percent since it was privatized in 1996.906 The seventeen million tons of pollution generated in 2005 by the plant account for nearly nine percent of Australia’s total pollution from electricity generation.907 Anticipated effects from the expansion of Hazelwood include increased health problems for local residents, especially respiratory problems like shortness of breath and declines in lung function,908 destruction of indigenous cultural resources, increased emissions of greenhouse gases, displacement of families,909 and destruction of nearby indigenous cultural sites considered by local aboriginal people to be of high cultural significance.910 The pollution, the destruction of cultural heritage, and the relocation of families negatively affect the rights to health, culture and life of nearby residents.

The planned construction of a new mine pit and the continued operation of the power plant will also increase noise and dust levels in the community.911 Numerous medical studies have shown that air pollutants emitted by power plants have serious adverse health effects, and that outdated power plants, such as the 40-year-old Hazelwood plant, emit high levels of nitrogen and sulfur oxides.912

The polluting activities of Hazelwood Power Station also have global effects. The station emits 1.53 million tons of carbon dioxide each month, making it the second largest single emitter

900 Melissa Fyfe and Farrah Tomazin, Hazelwood Expansion Gets 'Green' Light, THE AGE, Sept. 7, 2005, available at http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/hazelwood-extension-gets-the-green-light/2005/09/06/1125772522506.html. 901 See Australian Conservation Foundation v Minister for Planning (2004) VCAT 2029. 902 Victoria Department of Infrastructure, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Deed, http://www.doi.vic.gov.au/DOI/Internet/Energy.nsf/AllDocs/88831B7277C9437DCA25701B00248D59?OpenDocument. 903 Id. 904 Rob Myer, More Power to Act for Owner of Hazelwood, THE AGE, Sept. 8, 2005, available at http://theage.com.au/articles/2005/09/07/1125772584248.html. 905 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Deed, supra note 902. 906 Greenpeace Briefing, Hazelwood – a Polluting Dinosaur, Aug. 2005, http://www.greenpeace.org.au/climate/pdfs/Hazelwood_fact_sheet.pdf. 907 Id. 908 Id. 909 Fyfe and Tomazin, supra note 900; see also Hazelwood Westfield EES, at 190, Mar. 2005, http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/CA256F310024B628/0/16A57D77B764AC86CA25700300034559/$File/Hazelwood+Panel+Report+-+Ch+13-24.pdf. 910 Id. 911 Hazelwood Westfield EES, supra note 909, at 214. 912 Jefferson H. Dickey, Health Effects of Criteria Air Pollutants from Power Plants 2002, Summary and Conclusions, Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility, http://psr.igc.org/nrtb-power-plants6.htm (last visited Nov. 30, 2005).

105

of carbon dioxide in the world.913 Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is one of the main causes of global climate change, which is threatening traditional cultures across the world. Expansion of the Hazelwood Power Station over the next 25 years would contribute to the negative effects of global climate change, from increased temperatures in ocean waters to sea level rise to the melting of glaciers. As part of a plan to address climate change in October, 2006, the Federal Government of Australia announced that it would spend $50 million to cut emissions from the Hazelwood power plant.914 Environmental groups, however, are dissatisfied with the decision, and assert that even with the emissions reductions, Hazelwood will remain one of the most polluting power stations, and that the government should instead commit to closing down the power station.915

2. Nuclear Waste Facility

The Australian federal government is contemplating a new nuclear waste dump on Commonwealth land surrounded by aboriginal lands in Central Australia in the Northern Territory.916 The dump would house waste transported from the Lucas Heights nuclear plant near Sydney. Opposition to the proposed nuclear disposal facility by territorial governments has caused the Australian federal government to pass legislation that will head off any challenges from local government, indigenous owners, and environmentalists.917 The 2005 law allows the nuclear waste facility to be built within five years on the proposed site, without consultation with indigenous peoples or the local government.

The Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Bill of 2005 removes all opportunities for local participation in federal decisions on siting nuclear waste management facilities.918 The Bill extinguishes native title rights, giving the Science Minister “absolute discretion” in the siting of a dump.919 An amendment accompanying this bill also removes judicial review of the federal governments’ nuclear waste siting decisions.920 The bill poses conflicts with the rights to participation, information, and development.

There was no consultation with indigenous groups surrounding the proposed site for waste from the Lucas Heights plant. In September 2005, the Australian Science Minister stated 913 Michael Bachelard, Greenhouse Gas Culprit Has Life Extended 25 Years, THE AUSTRALIAN, Sept. 6, 2005, available at http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,16505973,00.html; see also Press Release, WWF Australia, Hazelwood – the Dirtiest Power Station in the World?, http://www.wwf.org.au/News_and_information/Features/feature34.php (last visited Oct. 15, 2005)(stating that Hazelwood is actually the most polluting of the major coal fired power plants in the world). 914 See $125m for Vic renewable energy projects, ABC NewsOnline (Oct 25, 2006), available at http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200610/s1772832.htm. 915 Id. 916 Nigel Adlam, Nuclear 'Poison' Not Welcome, NORTHERN TERRITORY NEWS, Sept. 14, 2005, available at http://www.ntnews.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,7034,16599192%255E13569,00.html. 917 Nigel Adlam, Nuclear Warfare, NORTHERN TERRITORY NEWS, Oct. 14, 2005, available at http://www.ntnews.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,7034,16913873%255E13569,00.html; see also Australian Conservation Foundation, Nuke Dump Bill Bad for Environment and Democracy, Oct. 13, 2005, http://www.acfonline.org.au/news.asp?news_id=578. 918 Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Bill, 2005, No. 05168, available at http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/PIWeb/search_main.aspx (search "Text" for "Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2005"; select "collection: legislation") (last visited Oct. 16, 2005). 919 Australian Conservation Foundation, supra note 917. 920 Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management (Rel. Amend.) Bill, 2005, No. 05167, available at http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/BD/2005-06/06bd060.htm (last visited Aug. 23, 2006).

106

that consultation with indigenous peoples will begin “next month,” but that “the nuclear waste facility will be built in the Territory.” There are currently two alternative sites, also in the Northern Territory, which are being researched.921

B. New Zealand

1. Dioxin Contamination Indigenous New Zealanders are suffering from dioxin poisoning from a Dow Chemical

plant that manufactured Agent Orange, a dioxin-laced herbicide, in the 1960s through the 1980s.922 A 2005 New Zealand government report found that the high levels of dioxin in the blood of residents are due to historical aerial emissions from the Ivon Watkins Dow Chemical plant during its production years.923 Test results of residents who lived near the plant revealed dioxin levels 4 to 6 times higher than the average New Zealander.924

In addition to contamination from Agent Orange production, dioxin-laced pentachlorophenol (PCP) used during the timber treatment process is polluting soil and water in sites throughout New Zealand.925 A number of NGOs have organized a public awareness campaign to force the companies responsible for pollution and the New Zealand government to clean up the pollution.926

The Green Party of New Zealand and numerous NGOs have called on the New Zealand government to assist dioxin contaminated residents and to make the Dow Chemical Corporation liable for the damage it has caused to the environment and to pay for the violations of the people’s right to health.927

Dioxins are among the most deadly chemicals known to humans, causing cancer and interrupting hormone and immune systems in the body.928 Most commonly, dioxins are produced as the unwanted by-products of industrial processes. In New Zealand, more than 1 in 1,000 people may be suffering from cancer due to dioxin contamination.929 In addition, many are suffering from the non-lethal effects of dioxin, such as birth defects, behavioral problems, diabetes and many other serious health impacts.930

921 House of Representatives Votes and Proceedings for Oct. 13, 2005, words of Dr. Nelson concerning the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2005 and Associated Amendment, 1-3 (PDF 17-19) available at http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/dailys/dr131005.pdf (discussing proposed site alternatives and impetus for the Bills). 922 Greenpeace, Journey for Environmental Justice Begins for People Poisoned Daily, Mar. 4, 2005, http://www.greenpeace.org.nz/news/news_main.asp?PRID=789. 923 New Zealand Ministry of Health, Dioxins in New Zealand, Serum Dioxin Study, http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/238fd5fb4fd051844c256669006aed57/e7fe671ed87fabd1cc256fea00762da6?OpenDocument#1 (last visited Nov. 29, 2005). 924 Id. 925 Greenpeace, supra note 922. 926 Greenpeace, supra note 922. 927 Sue Kedgley, Green Party Health Spokesperson, Yet Another Study Not Solution for Dioxin Contaminated Residents, Mar. 10, 2005, http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/PR8388.html. 928 Id. 929 Greenpeace, Paradise Poisoned, Dioxin and POPs, http://www.greenpeace.org.nz/campaigns/toxics/dioxins/default.asp (last visited Oct. 18, 2005). 930 Id.

107

IX. NORTH AMERICA

A. United States

1. Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge In a major environmental and human rights victory, the U.S. Senate voted in December 2005 to reject an addition to the Defense Appropriations Bill that would have opened the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil exploration. In March, 2006, the Senate Budget Committee attempted to reopen the issue by including Arctic Refuge drilling in the 2007 budget bill.931 A budget bill with language authorizing drilling the refuge passed in the U.S. House of Representatives, and kept alive the possibility of authorizing Arctic National Wildlife Refuge oil drilling through the budget process.932

The language attached to the 2007 budget bill threatened a pristine environment, home – for the last 10,000 years – to the Gwich’in people of Alaska. The Gwich’in have always depended on a subsistence lifestyle, including hunting of the Porcupine (River) caribou herd, for approximately 75 percent of their protein and calories as well as clothes, tools and other life-sustaining materials.933 The Gwich’in aboriginal hunting ground falls within the 19 million acre boundary of ANWR, which, in the past, has been off limits to developers. In disrupting the land traversed by the caribou herds on which the Gwich’in depend, their lives, livelihoods, and traditional way of life have been threatened. Additionally, the Gwich’in’s interests have largely been overlooked in the decades-old debate about energy security, violating their right to participation.934

In recent years, numerous attempts have been made to open the area up for oil exploration, drawing criticism from environmental and human rights activists. Increased human activity and resource extraction may bring devastating impacts to the surrounding environment, destroying the Gwich’in’s livelihood. The potential for oil spills, pipe leaks, and oil flares threaten the integrity of the Gwich’ins’ food and water sources. The right to health is also at stake in light of the adverse human health effects which stem from, or are exacerbated by, air pollution from oil flaring.

2. Hurricane Katrina

In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina tore through the Southeastern United States, causing major damage to the coastal regions of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama and resulting in the most destructive and costliest natural disaster in the history of the United States.935 Over a

931 Press Release, Arctic Refuge Threatened by Tired Old Tricks, Earthjustice, March 9, 2006, available at http://www.earthjustice.org/news/press/006/arctic-refuge-threatened-by-tired-old-tricks.html, (last visited Aug. 23, 2006). 932 Press Release, Earthjustice, America’s Arctic Refuge is Under Attack!, Updated May 25, 2006, available at http://www.earthjustice.org/our_work/policy/2005/arctic_refuge_still_at_risk_from_budget_reconciliation.html (last visited Aug. 23, 2006). 933 See Leadership for a Changing World, 2001 Award Recipients, Sarah James, Local and Global Leadership, Gwich’in Style: An Indigenous People Fight to Protect Their Culture on Alaska’s Coastal Plain, [hereinafter 2001 Award Recipients], http://leadershipforchange.org/awardees/awardee.php3?ID=15 (last visited Feb. 14, 2006). 934 Id. 935 Hurricane Katrina, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina (last visited Nov. 28, 2005).

108

million people were displaced by Hurricane Katrina, thousands were killed by the storm and its effects, and the damage is estimated at more than $200 billion.936

Environmental degradation played a key role in exacerbating the damage from Hurricane Katrina. Louisiana’s loss of wetlands and damage to coastal ecology made the city of New Orleans far more vulnerable to the hurricane’s effects.937 The destruction of wetlands along Louisiana’s gulf coast for the construction of homes and shipping lanes, among other things, moved the danger of hurricanes in the gulf closer to the metropolitan area, and removed natural barriers that could have helped shield Gulf Coast communities.938 Changes in oceanic circulation patterns caused by greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to global climate change, also intensified the destructive force of Hurricane Katrina.939 Increases in air and ocean temperatures are mainly caused by increased levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere as a result of the burning of fossil fuels.940 There is growing consensus among scientists that this human-induced global climate change affects the behavior of hurricanes, and increases their intensity, escalating the threats from these otherwise natural disasters.941

Roughly 150,000 people were unable to leave the city of New Orleans when Hurricane Katrina hit.942 Several refuges were established for these citizens, but conditions in the refuges were generally unsanitary, and lacked food and water, all of which implicated the right to health.943

The prolonged flooding in the city also posed risks of health problems.944 Dehydration, food poisoning, and increased outbreaks of communicable diseases and diarrhea, as well as increased respiratory illness were all dangers, and people who suffered from allergies or lung disorders, such as asthma, had health complications due to toxic mold and airborne irritants.945

The environmental degradation that preceded and exacerbated Hurricane Katrina, and the unsanitary environmental conditions that resulted from it threatened the rights to health and life of local people.946

936 Id. 937 Hari Osofsky, Katrina Disaster Exposes Environmental Injustice, THE REGISTER GUARD, Sept. 7, 2005, available at http://www.registerguard.com/news/2005/09/07/ed.col.olofsky.0907.p2.php?section=opinion. 938 Beth Daley, The Price of Protection: The Battle to Save New Orleans from Hurricanes Begins in Louisiana Delta, THE BOSTON GLOBE, Nov. 7, 2005, available at http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2005/11/07/the_price_of_protection/. 939 Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, Impacts of a Warming Climate: Final Overview Report (“ACIA Overview”), 2 (Cambridge University Press 2004), available at http://www.amap.no/acia/. 940 What Causes Global Warming?, National Environmental Trust (NET), available at http://environet.policy.net/warming/causing.vtml (last visited on Nov. 28, 2005). 941 See Webster, Holland, Curry & Chang, Changes in Tropical Cyclone Number, Duration and Intensity in a Warming Environment, SCIENCE, Vol. 309, 1844, (Sept. 16, 2005); see also Kerry Emmanuel, Increasing Destructiveness of Tropical Cyclones over the Past 30 Years, NATURE, Vol. 436, 686, (Aug. 2005). 942 Hurricane Katrina, supra note 935. 943 Id. 944 Id. 945 Id. 946 Hari Osofsky, supra note 937.

109

3. Oregon’s Chemical Weapons Incineration Program

The Umatilla Chemical Depot (UMCD) is a 19,728 acre military facility which sits thirty miles upwind of The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. The facility is located on tribal land ceded to the government in 1855.947 Tribal members retain treaty rights over the area occupied by the facility, including the right to fish and gather plants and medicines.948

The UMCD opened in 1941 as a storage and shipment facility for conventional munitions, and began storing chemical weapons in 1962.949 The Army began incineration of all chemical weapons on site in September of 2004.950 Incineration of chemical warfare agents poses health risks of both an immediate and long term nature and directly implicates the right to health and life of residents neighboring the incineration facility. 951 Adverse effects can occur with even very low exposure to incinerator emissions.952 Some of the worst dangers include cancer, birth defects, reproductive dysfunction, immune system disorders, and neurological damage.953 In addition to emissions, highly toxic ashes and effluents will be created, impacting the right to health of neighboring residents.954

The tribes were not consulted about the plans to incinerate chemical weapons at the Umatilla site, thus implicating tribal members’ rights to information and participation.955 Of the nine military stockpile sites at which chemical weapons incinerators were built around the United States, six of them, including the UMCD, are in areas where there is a greater percentage of minorities and/or people living below the poverty level than the national average.956 In Umatilla County, where the UMCD is located, for example, the percentage of Native Americans is 305% higher than the national average.957

Widespread opposition by citizens’ groups, environmental organizations, health organizations, and Native American groups, who have called for alternative and safer disposal methods of the chemical weapons, has not deterred the Army from designating incineration as the preferred method for destroying chemical weapons at the site.958

947 GlobalSecurity.org, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Umatilla Chemical Depot (UMCD), http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/facility/umatilla.htm (last visited Nov. 28, 2005). 948 Suzanne Marshall PhD., Chemical Disposal and Environmental Justice, KENTUCKY ENVIRONMENTAL FOUNDATION, Nov. 1996, available at http://www.cwwg.org/EJ.HTML#Heading1#Heading1. 949 U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency, Umatilla, OR, http://www.cma.army.mil/umatilla.aspx (last visited Nov. 28, 2005). 950 Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), History of the Chemical Demilitarization Program, http://www.deq.state.or.us/umatilla/history.htm (last visited Nov. 28, 2005). 951 Mark Brown & Karyn Jones, Umatilla, Oregon Incinerator Must be Stopped!, COMMON SENSE, April 1998, available at http://www.oregontoxics.org/brown.html. 952 Id. 953 Id. 954 Id. 955 Suzanne Marshall, supra note 948. 956 Id. 957 Id. 958 Id.

110

4. The Inuit and Global Climate Change

In December 2005, Sheila Watt-Cloutier and sixty-two other Inuit people of Canada and the United States submitted a petition for precautionary measures to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), seeking relief from human rights violations resulting from the impacts of global warming and climate change caused by acts and omissions of the United States.959

Though climate change is a global problem, nowhere has it had as severe an impact as on the Arctic region.960 Average temperatures are increasing more than twice as fast as anywhere else in the world, transfiguring the landscape.961 The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment of 2004 confirmed the extreme vulnerability of the region to dramatic shifts in climate, and concluded that “[o]ver the next 100 years, climate change is expected to accelerate, contributing to major physical, ecological, social, and economic changes, many of which have already begun.”962

The Inuit’s rights to culture, health, life and development (among others), have been threatened by the changes in ice, land, water, and wildlife – phenomena that fall outside their extensive traditional knowledge.963 Changes in sea ice are affecting travel routes and hunting practices, with experienced hunters falling through weakened ice and animal behavior becoming less predictable.964 Previously frozen coastlines are eroding, causing damage to Inuit homes.965 New species are appearing in the Inuit landscape that have never been there before, attracted to the warmer weather, and other species are becoming less accessible to the Inuit because the animals are moving to new locations.966 Finally, Inuit health is being directly affected by changes in diet, and increased sun and heat exposure.967

The petition sought relief from the United States, and relied on the government’s obligations under international law, including its membership in the Organization of American States and its acceptance of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, as well as its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change to protect the rights of the Inuit described above.968 In November 2006, the IACHR declined to accept the Inuit petition, but in March 2007, the Commission held a hearing to explore the relationship between global warming and human rights.

959 Petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Seeking Relief from Violations Resulting from Global Warming Caused by Acts and Omissions of the United States, submitted, Dec. 7, 2005, available at http://www.earthjustice.org/news/documents/12-05/Petition_Summary.pdf [hereinafter Inuit Petition]. 960 Id. 961 Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, Impacts of a Warming Climate: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, Cambridge University Press, 2004, available at http://www.amap.no/acia/. 962 Id. at 10. 963 Id. at 5. 964 Emily Gertz, The Snow Must Go On, GRIST MAGAZINE, July 26, 2005, http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/07/26/gertz-inuit/. 965 Id. 966 Id. See also Inuit Petition, supra note 959. 967 Id. 968 See Inuit Petition, supra note 959.

111

B. Mexico

1. La Parota Dam As part of the proposed Plan Puebla Panama,969 the Mexican government has begun work

on the La Parota dam, a 532-foot, 765-megawatt hydroelectric dam in southern Mexico.970 Opponents to the development corridor and the dam argue that its implementation will degrade sensitive ecosystems and further marginalize the indigenous and peasant communities that depend upon these ecosystems for food, culture, and livelihood.971

The La Parota dam is expected to submerge 34,000 acres of forest and farmland, and will require the resettlement of 25,000 subsistence farmers from more than 20 communities.972 In addition, thousands more living nearby will experience water shortages and increased salinity of the soil, interfering with their rights to food, water, and health.

Besides the displacement of local residents, opponents are also concerned that the energy generated from the dam will be exported to the United States, or utilized primarily in the tourist-rich Acapulco nearby, denying many poor residents of southern Mexico much-needed electricity in their homes.973 Critics also claim that work began on the project without community involvement and was carried out in a nontransparent manner, violating citizens’ rights to participation and information. In January 2006, the Agrarian Tribunal of Acapulco – a government body responsible for overseeing legal actions related to agrarian activities in rural areas – found that community members were not provided adequate and timely notification of assemblies about the dam, in which they could have participated and received information about the project and its impacts.974

Leaders of the opposition movement have also alleged that Mexico’s Federal Commission on Electricity (CFE) has paid local residents to voice support for the dam, and has falsified signatures on petitions.975 Protesters have been treated dismissively by the governments and corporations involved and on some occasions met with harassment and violence. Concerned citizens and activist groups, for example, were arrested while attempting to blockade the construction area in 2004.976

In April 2005, the CFE announced it would commence working on the project after having gathered enough signatures in favor of the dam from those living in proximity to its

969 Plan Puebla Panama is a proposed development project that will connect the countries of Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama, and the southern Mexican states of Campeche, Chiapas, Guerrero, Oaxaca, Puebla, Quintana Roo, Tabasco, Verzcruz and the Yucatan. See Inter-American Development Bank, Plan Puebla Panama, http://www.iadb.org/aboutus/II/re_ppp.cfm?language=English (last visited March 7, 2006). 970 Other projects proposed by PPP include the construction of many more ‘maliquas’ which have been harshly condemned in the international community for their sweatshop conditions and lack of appreciation for environmental standards. For more information, see Lisa Gonsalves, The Plan Puebla Panama, CHIAPAS SUPPORT COMMITTEE, Jan. 14, 2002, http://www.chiapas-support.org/plan_panama.htm. 971 Id. 972 Id. 973 See Lenny, Mexican Dam ignites resistance to Plan Puebla Panama, EARTH FIRST! JOURNAL, 2004, available at http://www.ftaaresistance.org/ppp/mexicandam.html. 974 Tribunal Unitario Agrario de Acapulco [Unitary Agricultural Tribunal of Acapulco], Decisión, Enero 19, 2006 975 Eliza Barclay, Dam debate intensifies, HOUSTON CHRONICLE, Feb. 15, 2006. 976 Lenny, supra note 973.

112

construction site as is necessary to continue. Allegations of bribery and name falsification brought before the Attorney General by opponents of the dam, however, were investigated.977

In September, 2006, a District Judge placed a series of amparos (constitutional injunctions), ordering a halt to further construction of the dam until a decision was reached in a case brought by local opposition groups alleging that the participation process carried out was inadequate.978 The amparos were put in place in October, 2006, but no final decision on the case has been made.

C. Canada

1. Toxic Spraying at New Brunswick Army Base The Canadian government has admitted spraying Agent Orange on a New Brunswick military base to clear brush for training exercises in the mid- to late-1960s.979 A U.S. Army report also shows that Agent Purple - which contains three to four times more cancer-causing materials than Agent Orange - was also sprayed at the base in the 1950s and 1960s.980 Although the Canadian government has agreed to compensate affected soldiers, it refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of claims being brought by civilians who lived near, or worked for, the base when the spraying occurred.981

While several members of the provincial legislature have raised their political voices, asking the government to compensate affected citizens, the Canadian government has taken no action.982 This negatively affects many poor seniors who cannot afford to bring high-caliber chemical engineers and medical experts to the stand.

Scientists remain concerned that traces of the carcinogenic chemicals still exist on the base, as Agent Orange has been shown to remain in the soil decades after its release. Local activists have called on the government to undertake community health studies.983 In August 2005, the government appointed a fact finder to lead an investigation into the chemicals used at the base.984 Results from two of the group’s fact finding missions were released in the summer of 2006, and subsequent findings, including a database of individuals affected, were forthcoming as of December 2006.985 Results will be submitted to the Minister of Defense and an ad hoc

977 T.J. Watson, La Parota Dam, RESOURCE CENTER OF THE AMERICAS, http://www.americas.org/item_19928 (last visited Mar. 14, 2006). 978 News Release, Consejo de Ejidos y Comunidades Opositores a la Presa La Parota & Centro de Derechos Humanos de la Montaña TLACHINOLLAN, A. C., Incumple CFE resolución judicial, (Dec 7, 2006). 979 News Release, Canadian National Defense, Backgrounder: Testing of Agent Orange and Agent Purple at CFB Gagetown in 1966 and 1967 (June 23, 2000), http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/6_4.asp?FlashEnabled=1&ID=160 [hereinafter News Release, Canadian National Defense]. 980 Id. 981 Civilians want compensation for chemical spraying at N.B.base, CBC NEWS, June 14, 2005, available at http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/06/14/newagent-orange050614.html. 982 See News Release, Canadian National Defense, supra note 979 983 Toxic herbicide could still be on army base, scientist says, CBC News, June 15, 2005, available at http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/06/15/agent-purple050615.html. 984 Chris Arsenault, “Collateral Damage”, THIS MAGAZINE, (March-April, 2006), available at http://www.thismagazine.ca/issues/2006/03/collateral.php. 985 Newsletter, Base Gagetown and Area Factfinders Project, (Dec. 2006), available at: http://www.basegagetownandareafactfindersproject.ca/PDF/DEC_ENG.pdf

113

cabinet committee. The fact-finding mission cannot make recommendations to the government.986 However, in October, 2006, VAC Minister Greg Thompson announced that he hoped to present a compensation package to parliament in the fall.

Additionally, in July, 2005, 1,400 former members of the Canadian military who served at the base joined a class-action request in the Federal Court of Canada.987 In May, 2006, the case was moved to provincial court in Manitoba.

X. CENTRAL & SOUTH AMERICA

A. Ecuador

1. Groundwater Pollution in the Amazon988 From 1971 to 1992 Texaco (now ChevronTexaco) dumped more than 18 billion gallons of toxic oil waste water into the Ecuadorian Amazon and left over 600 open toxic waste pits behind, threatening the lives and livelihood of 30,000 indigenous people who live in the Oriente region of Ecuador.989

In 2000, a U.S. district court dismissed a class-action lawsuit brought by Oriente residents against Texaco under the Alien Tort Claims Act on the ground of forum non conveniens and required ChevronTexaco to submit to Ecuadorian jurisdiction.990 The case was brought in 2003 to the Superior Court of Lago Agrio in Ecuador and is currently ongoing. As part of this lawsuit, judicial inspections began in 2004 to determine if the drinking water in the area was contaminated by Texaco’s operations991

As of August 2005, samples from fourteen of the 350 well sites operated by Texaco had been submitted to the court.992 Of the 107 samples submitted by both the plaintiffs and ChevronTexaco, 105 (98 percent) contain high levels of toxins in violation of Ecuadorian law.993 Furthermore, both Chevron’s scientists and technical experts for the plaintiffs have submitted reports to the court finding extensive contamination at all of the 22 sites tested.994 Throughout the court proceedings in Ecuador, ChevronTexaco’s main defense has been that it remediated former sites in the mid-1990s. However, soil and water samples show extensive contamination levels that violate Ecuadorian law in one of every twelve sites allegedly remediated.995

986 Supra note 989. 987 Jan Ravensbergent, Dying cancer patients fight for Agent Orange justice, CANWEST NEWS SERVICE, (Oct. 9, 2006), available at http://www.bhopal.net/alliedcampaigns/archives/2006/10/dying_cancer_pa.html. 988 This case study was included in the issue paper prepared for the Commission’s 61st Session. 989 Press Release, Amazon Watch, Rainforest Water “Taste Test” at Chevron Headquarters (Aug. 23, 2005), http://www.amazonwatch.org/newsroom/view_news.php?id=973. 990 Amazon Watch, The Chevron-Texaco Legacy, http://www.amazonwatch.org/amazon/EC/toxico/index.php?page_number=5 (last visited Mar. 14, 2006). 991 Id. 992 Press Release, Amazon Watch, Chevron Faces More Trouble as Scientific Results in Ecuador Trial Point to Billion-Dollar Liability (Aug. 24, 2005), http://www.amazonwatch.org/view_news.php?id=972. 993 Id. 994 Press Release, Amazon Defense Coalition, The Chevron-Texaco Toxic Legacy (Feb. 5, 2006), http://www.amazonwatch.org/amazon/EC/toxico/view_news.php?id=1036. 995 Id.

114

The Ecuadorian government is also involved in litigation against the company in U.S. federal court in New York.996 In that case, Chevron and the government of Ecuador are fighting over who should pay for the liability stemming from the Lago Agrio trial in Ecuador.997 While Texaco alleges that Ecuador approved their remediation work in the mid-90s (and that they, thus, have no further obligation), Ecuador is trying to demonstrate that the documentation of that approval was obtained fraudulently.998 That case is slated for trial in March, 2007.

The extreme environmental contamination in this case is estimated to have affected tens of thousands of indigenous people.999 Indigenous groups like the Cofan, numbering only 800, fear for their survival because of the heavily contaminated water and resulting cancer rates and other health problems.1000 This large-scale contamination violates the rights of entire communities to life, culture, health, water and a healthy environment.

2. Cotacachi Mine A town of 500 residents, Junin borders the 200,000 hectare Cotacachi-Cayapas Ecological Reserve. 1001 The reserve encompasses an area of immense biodiversity including more than 500 species of birds and 2,000 species of plants and trees.1002 It also contains an estimated 2.26 million tons of copper.1003

Mining interests first entered the area in the mid-1990s, when Bishimetals, a subsidiary of the Japanese-based Mitsubishi Corporation, began exploring extraction possibilities in the area.1004 The surrounding communities strongly opposed the project and the situation escalated in 1997 when the company’s mining camp was burned to the ground.1005 Mitsubishi thereafter abandoned its plan and left the area.1006

In 2002, mining concessions in the area were auctioned off to Roque Bustante, a private dealer in mining concessions. In 2004 the concessions were sold to Ascendant Holding Ltd., and transferred to Ascendant Copper Corporation (ACX-T), based in Vancouver, Canada. A coalition of citizens of the region are fiercely opposing this new mining interest. They claim that mining will destroy their natural resources, force the relocation of farm families, destroy their communities, and violate their right to live in an environment free from contamination.1007 They

996 Press Release, ChevronToxico, Ecuador Attorney General Asks US Justice Department to Investigate Fraud, (Dec. 21, 2006), available at http://www.chevrontoxico.com/article.php?id=341. 997 Id. See also Ecuador, Chevron tangle over pollution trial, EcoAmericas, Vol.8, No. 10, (Aug. 2006). 998 Id. 999 CorpWatch, Pressure Mounts on Chevrontexaco to Confront its Responsibility, available at http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=1079. 1000 Press Release, Amazon Watch, In Historic $6 Billion Case, ChevronTexaco Resorts To “Junk Science" To Hide Environmental Disaster in The Ecuadorian Amazon (Jan. 28, 2005), available at http://www.amazonwatch.org/amazon/EC/toxico/view_news.php?id=887. 1001 Mines & Communities, supra note ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. 1002 Friends of the Earth, Canadian Mining Threatens Endangered Species and Communities in Ecuador, http://www.foecanada.org/index.php?option=content&task=blogsection&id=9 (last visited October 2005). 1003 Id. 1004 Stuart Schussler, Copper vs. Ecology in Junin, THE DOMINION, Aug. 29, 2005, http://dominionpaper.ca/features/2005/08/29/copper_vs_.html. 1005 Id. 1006 Id. 1007 Miningwatch Canada, In a Single Voice: NO TO MINING, Apr. 2005, http://www.miningwatch.ca/updir/OECD_Q_Declaration_en.html.

115

further claim that Ascendant Copper Corporation has not consulted or has minimally informed the Cotacachi Municipality of its plans, violating the procedural rights to participate and to obtain information.1008 The communities have requested that Ascendant Copper leave their territory.1009

To gain community support, Ascendant Copper offered jobs and lodging to community members if they support the mine.1010 In April 2005, Ascendent allegedly hired more than one hundred people and bused them to Junin to protest the opposition to the mine – an event that erupted in violence between the outside protestors and local governments officials.1011

In May 2005, a group of NGOs, filed a formal complaint with Canada’s Department of International Trade alleging breaches of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises by Ascendant Copper Corporation, and asking the Canadian government to investigate.1012 While the groups eventually withdrew the complaint on the grounds that the Department did not implement the OECD procedural measures properly, and thus proceeding with the claim was futile, the Department never formally responded to the complaint, and the request by the groups for non-confidential meetings was rejected, denying them their procedural rights.1013

The company’s Environmental Impact Statement, submitted in late 2006 to the Ministry of Energy and Mines, was found to be so flawed by the Ministry that they could not even process it.1014 The Ministry noted in a December, 2006 letter to Ascendant Copper that the company had not met its obligations concerning communities most at risk, and that they did not comply with regulations governing the consultation process with the communities.1015

The aggressive persuasion tactics used by Ascendent Copper, in combination with the lack of information disclosure by the company, alleged OECD violations, and threats to the environment infringe upon the right to health, the right to a healthy environment, and the right to participation by local communities and concerned groups.

3. Yasuní National Park The Yasuní National Park and Biosphere Reserve in the Ecuadorian Amazon is the largest park in Ecuador and encompasses one of the most biologically diverse regions in the world.1016 It is also home to the Huaorani indigenous people, whose rights to life, culture and

1008 Id. 1009 Id. 1010 Schussler, supra note 1004. 1011 Press Release, INTAG, Mining Transnational in Cotacachi Steps up the Abuse (Apr. 11, 2005), http://www.intagnewspaper.org/IN34_PressRelease.html. 1012 Mines & Communities, International Investment Complaint Filed Against Canadian Mining Company, May 18, 2005, http://www.minesandcommunities.org/Action/press625.htm. 1013 Mining Watch, Voluntary Corporate Standards Fail Again: Environmental Organizations Withdraw Complaint Against Ascendant Copper, Jan. 16, 2006, available at http://www.miningwatch.ca/index.php?/246/OECD_complaint_withdr, (last visited Aug. 24, 2006). 1014 Letter from Yolanda Viteri, Subsecretary of Environmental Protection, Ministry of Energy & Mines to Francisco Veintimilla, General Manager, Ecuador, Ascendant Copper, (Dec. 8, 2006), available at http://www.ascendantalert.ca/Files/EIA_desaprobado.pdf. 1015 Id. 1016 Indigenous Huaorani Seek Oil Moratorium on Their Amazonian Lands, ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS SERVICE, May17, 2005, http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2005/2005-05-17-01.asp.

116

work have been threatened by the activities of seven oil companies in the area. For decades, crude oil spills, pipeline construction and road building have caused severe harm to the environment and to the Huaorani people and their culture. Recently, however, the Huaorani have succeeded in preventing the Brazilian oil company Petrobras from building an access road into Yasuní.1017

In May 2005, two Huaorani leaders traveled to the United States and made an appeal before the United Nations, the U.S. Congress and the International Monetary Fund for a moratorium on oil extraction in their territory.1018 In July, 2005, over 150 Huaorani traveled to Quito to march against the project, calling for a ten year moratorium on new oil projects and the removal of Petrobras from their lands.1019 That same month the Ecuadorian Environment Ministry suspended construction of the access road that Petrobras had planned to build.1020 In late July, 2005, Petrobras filed a lawsuit against the Environment Ministry for the suspension, but an Ecuadorian court rejected the lawsuit on August 25, 2005, protecting the Huaorani people’s rights to life, culture, health, and a healthy environment.1021

In September 2006, Petrobras unveiled their new “roadless” project design. In the new design, all construction and transportation of the equipment will be transported to one of five ports by helicopter.1022 While no access road will be constructed, many environmental and indigenous groups are still unhappy with the new design, specifically citing threats to biodiversity and to ways of life of nearby indigenous groups who would be impacted by the facilities, as well as a lack of consultation with appropriate groups including the main Huaorani representative organizations.1023

B. Peru

1. Lead Smelter in La Oroya1024 The Doe Run Corporation, a U.S.-based company, is operating an eighty year old copper and lead smelter in the Andean community of La Oroya. The effects of the smelter’s emissions, which contain lead, arsenic, cadmium, and sulfur dioxide (among other contaminants), threaten 1017 Petrobras Backs Down, YASUNI RAINFOREST CAMPAIGN, Mar. 2006, http://www.saveamericasforests.org/Yasuni/News/Articles/2006/3-1-06%20Petrobras%20Will%20Not%20Build%20Oil%20Access%20Road%20in%20Yasuni.htm. 1018 Huaroanis Appeal for Protection in the United States, LA HORA, May 26, 2005, http://www.saveamericasforests.org/Yasuni/News/Articles/5-26-05.La%20Hora%20AFP.htm. 1019 Huaorani Demonstrate in Quito Against Petrobras, EL COMERCIO, July 12, 2005, available at http://www.saveamericasforests.org/Yasuni/News/Articles/7-12-05%20El%20Comercio-Huaorani%20Protest%20Against%20Petrobras.htm. 1020 Petrobras Road Construction Stopped By Ecuador Environment Minister in July, Still Halted in October, Yasuni Rainforest Campaign News, (Oct. 2005), http://www.saveamericasforests.org/Yasuni/News/Articles/10-10-05%20Huaorani%20Elect%20Anti-Oil%20Government.htm. 1021 See Matt Finer, Ecuador stops Petrobras's oil road into biodiversity treasure, People and Planet, Sept. 19, 2005, http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=2534. 1022 See Petrobrás, Proyecto De Desarrollo Y Producción Del Bloque 31,Campo Apaika Nenke, Resumen Ejecutivo Del Estudio De Impacto Y Plan De Manejo Ambiental, (Sept. 2006), available at http://www.ambiente.gov.ec/paginas_espanol/7noticias/docs/petrobras/Resumen%20Ejecutivo/Resumen.pdf. 1023 See Letter from Save America’s Forests, et al to Dr. Alfredo Palacio, President of the Republic of Ecuador, (Sept. 29, 2006), available at http://www.saveamericasforests.org/Yasuni/News/Articles/2006/Petrobras-EIS-cmmnts-NGO-9.06-Eng.pdf. 1024 This case study was included in the issue paper prepared for the Commission’s 61st Session.

117

the right to life, livelihood, health, and a healthy environment of the 30,000 members of this Peruvian community.1025 Sulfur dioxide emissions are causing widespread respiratory problems, while the inhalation, ingestion and absorption of lead and heavy metals are impacting the kidneys, gastrointestinal systems, reproductive systems, and nervous systems of community members, and particularly children.1026 A March 2005 study by researchers from St. Louis University - with assistance from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control - showed that 99 percent of the children tested in La Oroya had blood lead levels vastly exceeding the limits established as safe by the U.S. EPA and the World Health Organization.1027

In April 2005, a Lima civil court ordered the Peruvian State to take measures to protect the population of La Oroya, ruling that government agencies have failed to carry out the government’s duty to protect the population of La Oroya, but the court order was reversed by Lima’s Superior Court of Justice on appeal.1028 In November of 2005, Earthjustice, the Center for Human Rights and Environment (CEDHA), and the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) submitted a request for precautionary measures to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on behalf of a group of La Oroya citizens.1029 The Commission met with the State and petitioners in March, 2006, and has made requests for updated information, and is in the process of evaluating the request. The Commission is expected to issue a decision in the near future.

On June 27, 2006, Peru’s highest court recognized the environmental and human health impacts of the smelter when it ordered state health officials to take emergency measures to protect the health of the population in La Oroya.1030 The Tribunal ordered the Ministry of Health to, among other things, develop and implement a "public health emergency plan" to alleviate toxic emissions in the community, signifying a great victory in the fight against the harmful effects of the smelter.1031

In addition to the health and environmental impacts, the controversy surrounding the smelter has also caused social turmoil and community unrest. For example, on August 15, 2005, the St. Louis University team doing the environmental health study was attacked by groups of citizens opposed to the study.1032 Additionally, in September, 2006, officers from the Ministry of Health were threatened after making plans to hold a meeting to discuss the implementation of measures to improve public participation. Local community members and company workers have also demonstrated in support of Doe Run and the smelting operations, voicing their concern 1025 AIDA, La Oroya: Lead poisoning and the Doe Run lead smelter in Peru, available at http://www.aida-americas.org/aida.php?page=laoroya (last visited March 6, 2006). 1026 AIDA, Impacts of Contaminants from the Complex on Human Health, available at http://www.aida-americas.org/aida.php?page=laoroya.contaminants (last visited March 14, 2006). 1027 Press Release AIDA, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights asked to Prevent a Public Health Crisis in La Oroya, Peru, Nov. 21, 2005, http://www.aida-americas.org/aida.php?page=laoroya.iachr&PHPSESSID=79616d309dc6a8c6ed0c9da4e507cb0d. 1028 Id. 1029 Id. 1030 See KMOV.com, Peru Court Orders Emergency Cleanup of Town Where Doe Run Operates Smelter, http://www.kmov.com/business/asseenonnews4/stories/kmov_localnews_060630_doerunperu.1110d67b.html (last visited June 30, 2006) 1031 Id. 1032 Dr. Max Beraun, Archdiocise of Huancayo, St. Louis University Continues Environment Health Study in La Oroya Despite Violent Attacks, LEAD FREE FUTURE, Aug. 16, 2005, http://www.leadfreefuture.org/newswire.php?story_id=99&PHPSESSID=fa2206f3428d.

118

for the livelihood of La Oroya citizens.1033 They claim that Doe Run is working to improve the environment and decrease lead levels among the population.1034 Members of local churches and grassroots organizations, however, assert that Doe Run has compelled community members to show their support for the smelter by handing out gifts to community members and making superficial improvements in the community, and that company supporters discouraged local residents from participating in the environmental health study.1035

C. Brazil

1. Shrimp Farming Industry1036 The clearing of the Bahia mangroves in Brazil for shrimp farming has caused serious

environmental damage and social tensions that have resulted in the loss of human life.1037 Mangrove forests are fragile, unique ecosystems formed where the ocean and freshwater meet, and where the vegetation is ideal for the breeding of fish and crustaceans.1038 The presence of shrimp ponds in these fragile ecosystems leads to environmental degradation that is affecting local citizens’ right to livelihood, life and a healthy environment.

The ponds are constructed by cutting down the mangrove forests and digging dike ponds, which are then stocked with larvae.1039 The shrimp are fed with formulated protein pellets and supplementary artificial feeds,1040 and a number of chemical inputs such as antibiotics, pesticides and detergents are added to prevent disease. Pumped exchanges of water to remove wastes and to add clean oxygenated water are crucial to shrimp development. However, this results in accumulation of wastes and degradation in the surrounding ecosystem through pollution of the neighboring surface waters.1041 Loss of marine habitat threatens the wild fish and migratory bird populations and can devastate and displace local communities who depend on mangrove and coastal fisheries for their livelihoods.1042

In Salinas das Margaridas, the aquaculture company Maricultura Valenca used Brazilian Development Bank (BNDES) funding to expand and modernize its shrimp culturing and processing facilities. The project is expected to increase shrimp production by eighty percent and to generate an estimated 620 jobs.1043 The operations, however, have already resulted in widespread environmental degradation and damaged fish stocks, causing tension between

1033 Patrick Moore, Corporate Social Responsibility in Peru, CHRONWATCH, June 27, 2005, http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=15355. 1034 Id. 1035 Id. 1036 This case study was included in the issue paper prepared for the Commission’s 60th Session. 1037 See Mangrove, Shrimp Farm Link Sought in Brazilian Fisherman’s Death, ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS SERVICE, May 25, 2005, http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2005/2005-05-25-03.asp. 1038 Mario Osava, TRADE-BRAZIL: Shrimp - New Source of Tension with U.S., INTER PRESS SERVICE, Jan. 19, 2004, available at http://www.earthisland.org/map/ltfrn_134.htm. 1039 World Rainforest Movement, Unsustainable versus sustainable shrimp production, Oct. 2001, www.wrm.org.uy/bulletin/51/production.html. 1040 Id. 1041 Id. 1042 See Alfredo Quarto, Mangrove Action Project; Earth Island in the News, 18 EARTH ISLAND JOURNAL 4 (2004). See also World Rainforest Movement, Environmental, Social and Economic Impacts of Shrimp Farming, Oct. 2001, http://www.wrm.org.uy/bulletin/51/impacts.html. 1043 Quarto, supra note 1042. The production will increase from 3,900 tons per year to 7,000 tons per year.

119

fishermen who depend on the mangroves for their livelihood and shrimp farmers who rely on cleared mangroves for theirs.1044

In the spring of 2005, the tensions resulted in violence when Paulo Marinho de Almeida, a 33-year-old fisherman, was kidnapped and murdered.1045 Other fishermen have received death threats, and armed guards hired by Maricultura Valenca’s are reportedly creating an atmosphere of terror in the area.1046

D. Colombia

1. Plan Colombia1047 Since July 2000, the United States has provided over US$3 billion of aid to Colombia for

a massive anti-narcotics program to eradicate coca and opium poppy.1048 The program focuses primarily on spraying a glyphosate-based herbicide formulation from high altitudes over large areas of the Colombian countryside where illicit crops are grown. Between 2000 and 2005, the U.S. and Colombian governments sprayed over 660,000 hectares of coca and almost 20,000 hectares of poppy.1049 The program has generated significant controversy because of its questionable effectiveness and reports of adverse human health and environmental impacts.

The aerial spraying program violates the rights of Colombian and Ecuadorian border residents in the affected regions because it has caused significant damage to food and legal cash crops, pasture land, livestock and agricultural development projects, according to numerous official and unofficial reports.1050 In May and June 2005, for example, planes mistakenly sprayed herbicide over more than 50 USAID and UN-supported family farms associated with the Cooperative Association of Southern Cauca, most of which had received organic certification.1051 While a compensation program exists, many factors such as security concerns, expense, and long travel distances prevent the registration of complaints and their verification within specified deadlines.1052

Residents in sprayed areas also report suffering from a variety of health problems following spray events, including eye irritation, skin rashes and respiratory and digestive ailments.1053 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and a scientific advisory team to the

1044 Environmental News Service, Mangrove, Shrimp Farm Link Sought in Brazilian Fisherman’s Death, (May 25, 2005), available at http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2005/2005-05-25-03.asp. 1045 Id. 1046 Quarto, supra note 1042. 1047 This case study was included in the issue paper prepared for the Commission’s 58th, 59th, 60th and 61st Sessions. 1048 CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL POLICY, U.S. AID TO COLOMBIA SINCE 1997: SUMMARY TABLES (Feb. 8, 2006), http://www.ciponline.org/colombia/aidtable.htm. 1049 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, International Narcotic Control Strategy Reports for 2005 and 2006, available at http://www.state.gov/p/inl/rls/nrcrpt/ (last visited Mar. 6, 2006). 1050 BETSY MARSH, THE LATIN AMERICA WORKING GROUP EDUCATION FUND, GOING TO EXTREMES: THE U.S.-FUNDED AERIAL ERADICATION PROGRAM IN COLOMBIA, 10, (2004), http://www.lawg.org/docs/Going2ExtremesFinal.pdf (last visited Mar. 20, 2006). 1051 LUTHERAN WORLD RELIEF, ERADICATION HOPE IN COLOMBIA: FAIR TRADE, ORGANIC COFFEE FARMS DAMAGED BY ‘PLAN COLOMBIA’ HERBICIDE SPRAYING (2005), http://www.lwr.org/colombia/docs/eradicating_hope_Colombia.pdf (last visited Mar. 20, 2006). 1052 Connie Veillette and Carolina Navarrete-Frías, DRUG CROP ERADICATION AND ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT IN THE ANDES, 19, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, (2005), http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PCAAB383.pdf. 1053 Marsh, supra note 1050.

120

Organization of American States have conducted health assessments and determined that the health risks are likely minimal.1054 However, appropriate public health studies have yet to be completed. Following requests from Ecuadorian authorities, in March 2006 a UN scientific commission reviewed evidence of health impacts along the border region in Ecuador and concluded that sufficient evidence existed to warrant additional study in the region. The UN commission released its study proposal in May 2006.1055 The preliminary findings of the commission proposed a number of further studies and projects, including socioeconomic studies of the border region, and health monitoring of border populations, among others.1056 The commission also supported a temporary suspension of sprayings in the border region until findings about the health impacts have been confirmed.1057

The aerial spraying program also violates indigenous and Afro-Colombians’ right to consultation regarding activities on their lands. Despite a May 2003 Colombian Constitutional court ruling upholding this right to consultation, aerial spraying has and continues to be conducted on indigenous and Afro-Colombian lands in the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta and the Chocó region among others.1058

The displacement of coca fields due to the aerial eradication program has substantial adverse environmental impacts. Growers seeking to avoid eradication efforts move their coca fields to new areas, increasing deforestation, spreading contamination from coca cultivation and processing chemicals into remote forests and waterways, and opening wilderness areas to unplanned settlement.1059 According to the United Nations 2005 Colombia coca survey, a comparison of the location of coca crops between 2003 and 2004 indicated that about 60% of coca fields were new.1060 The UN Integrated Illicit Crop Monitoring System (SIMCI) also reported in November 2005 that coca cultivation caused the deforestation of 98,000 hectares (242,060 acres) of primary forest from 2000 to 2004.1061

According to assessments by the U.S. EPA and the OAS scientific advisory team (SAT), the herbicide formulation used for aerial eradication in Colombia may also pose significant risks

1054 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Details of the 2004 Consultation for the Department of State Use of a Herbicide for Coca and Poppy Eradication Program in Colombia, (Oct. 2004), http://www.state.gov/p/inl/rls/rpt/aeicc/57040.htm [hereinafter U.S. EPA Details of 2004 Consultation]. 1055 Ecuador Recibió Informe de Misión Técnica Preliminar de la ONU, Boletín De Prensa No. 344, Quito, 3 de Mayo del 2006 1056 Id. 1057 Id. 1058 Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo, Histórico encuentro de la Comunidad Internacional con Indígenas de la Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, June 28, 2004; See also Las Fumigaciones en Choco, CODHES, Jan. 19, 2005, http://www.codhes.org.co/dbreves2.php?breve=492&PHPSESSID=d0eb53c6219e85c09d7f031e9fc07ac4. 1059 INTERAMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE, RETHINKING PLAN COLOMBIA: CRITICAL OMISSIONS IN THE CICAD ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH ASSESSMENT OF THE AERIAL ERADICATION PROGRAM IN COLOMBIA (2005), http://www.aida-americas.org/templates/aida/uploads/docs/AIDA_CICAD_Critique.pdf (last visited Mar. 20, 2006). 1060 UNITED NATIONS, Office on Drugs and Crime, Colombia: Coca Cultivation Survey (June 2005), available at http://www.unodc.org/pdf/andean/Part3_Colombia.pdf. 1061 NACIONES UNIDAS, Oficina contra a Droga y el Delito Proyecto, Proyecto SIMCI II: Analísis Multitemporal de Cultivos de Coca Periodo 2003 – 2004 (Nov. 2005), available at http://www.unodc.org/pdf/colombia/simci/analisis_mutitemporal_coca_0304.pdf.

121

to aquatic organisms, particularly amphibians.1062 The SAT is currently conducting studies, including toxicity tests for amphibians as well as an assessment of the spray programs’ impacts on threatened species in Colombia, and will present preliminary results to the U.S. State Department for presentation to Congress.1063

Controversy over environmental impacts of the aerial eradication program has also stemmed from repeated attempts to spray herbicide in Colombian National Parks, in violation of Colombian environmental laws. Colombia’s National Council on Narcotics approved resolutions authorizing spraying in national parks in 2003 and again in 2005, but the current Minister of Interior declared in October 2005 that he would not allow aerial spraying in protected areas for the remainder of that year.1064 Two lawsuits alleging that aerial spraying violates Colombian law are pending final decisions. 1065

E. Guatemala

1. Glamis Goldmine The Marlin project, an open-pit gold and silver mine in the department of San Marcos in the western highlands of Guatemala has met widespread local opposition and threatens the rights to health, life and participation of the local indigenous Mayan community.1066 The project is being undertaken by Montana Exploradora de Guatemala, S.A. (ME), a subsidiary of the Canadian corporation Glamis Gold Ltd., with financing provided by a US$45 million loan from the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation (IFC).1067 The company contends that the project has broad support from the local indigenous community, which constitutes most of the region’s population, yet development of the mine is beset with controversy. 1068

The indigenous communities’ concerns about the mine revolve around its destructive environmental impacts and the lack of an effective, formal consultative process for local people. The rights of local Mayan people have been formally recognized by the Guatemalan government in its ratification of the ILO’s Convention Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (ILO 169).1069 Nevertheless, communities allege that the Guatemalan government failed to include indigenous groups in a comprehensive consultative process,

1062 See U.S. EPA Details of 2004 Consultation supra note 1054. 1063 Betsy Marsh, Personal Conversation with Dr. Keith Solomon, Lead Researcher for the Scientific Advisory Team to the OAS, March 6, 2006. 1064 No habrá fumigaciones en parques naturales, EL PAIS, Oct. 2, 2005; Yadira Ferrer, Tierramérica, Anti-Drug Herbicide to Be Sprayed Again in Nature Reserves, INTER PRESS SERVICE NEWS AGENCY, May 14, 2005, http://www.ipsnews.net/africa/interna.asp?idnews=28759. 1065 Id. 1066 See Aaron Pollack & John Tyynela, Commentary on the Serious Problems Being Caused by Glamis Gold's Mining Operations in Guatemala, MINES AND COMMUNITIES, Jan. 27, 2005, http://www.minesandcommunities.org/Action/press525.htm. 1067 See International Finance Corporation, Glamis Gold Ltd.’s Montana Exploradora Marlin Project in Guatemala, http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTOGMC/0,,contentMDK:20421886~pagePK:210058~piPK:210062~theSitePK:336930,00.html (last visited March 16, 2006). 1068 See Christopher Swann, World Bank Attacked Over Gold Mine, THE FINANCIAL TIMES LIMITED (LONDON), Aug. 22, 2005, at 7. 1069 See Mining Watch Canada, Two Killed So Far Protesting Glamis Gold in Guatemala, Mar. 21, 2005, http://www.miningwatch.ca/index.php?/152/Two_Killed_Protesting_Glamis_Gold_in_Guatemala.

122

violating ILO 169, and the right to participation of the groups.1070 The Syndicated Union of Guatemalan Workers (UNSITRAGUA) filed an official complaint with the ILO on January 20, 2005.1071

The adverse environmental impacts of the mine result from the use of cyanide to extract gold from ore, potentially introducing the cyanide, a deadly toxin, into the surrounding water supply, and implicating the rights to health and clean water for the nearby communities.1072 An independent review of the project’s original EIA, focusing on the effects on water quality, was commissioned by the local NGO Madre Selva, and revealed significant inadequacies.1073

Local indigenous groups vigorously protested the mine throughout 2005, despite military attempts to quell protests and violent clashes.1074 In January 2005, a forty day protest against the mine by local residents resulted in a clash with security forces and the death of one protester.1075 On March 13, 2005, an off-duty employee of a company hired to provide security for Glamis shot and killed a villager.1076

In response to a request by villagers for help, Madre Selva co-signed and helped file an official complaint with the Compliance Advisory Ombudsman of the International Finance Corporation (IFC).1077 On September 8, 2005, the IFC published its final “Assessment of a Complaint Submitted to CAO in Relation to the Marlin Mining Project in Guatemala.” In the report, the IFC conceded that documents submitted to the leaders of indigenous communities near the mine “did not at the time have sufficient information to allow for an informed view of the likely adverse impacts of the project.”1078 The report also says that the IFC and Glamis did not adequately disclose project impacts and other crucial information required for the free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous communities.1079

Communities in Sipacapa, one of the municipalities impacted by the mine, registered their position on mineral development through a popular referendum in June 2005.1080 The referendum showed that ninety-eight percent of the population was opposed to the mining project. Despite a December, 2005 meeting with then-Bank President Paul Wolfowitz to discuss the referendum,1081 the Bank continues to fail to recognize the referendum. Community

1070 Id. 1071 Eric Holt-Giménez and Lyra Spang, Glamis in Guatemala: A Project Alert on the Marlin Mine, BANK INFORMATION CENTER, Mar. 23, 2005, http://www.bicusa.org/bicusa/issues/latin_america/2019.php. 1072 See Daphne Eviatar, A Toxic Trade-Off, THE WASHINGTON POST, Aug. 14, 2005, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300099_pf.html. 1073 ROBERT MORAN, NEW COUNTRY, SAME STORY: REVIEW OF THE GLAMIS GOLD MARLIN PROJECT EIA, GUATEMALA (Feb. 2004), available at http://www.miningwatch.ca/cms/updir/Moran_Marlin_rpt_Feb_2005.pdf. 1074 Id. 1075 See Swann, supra note 1068. 1076 Id. 1077 Holt-Giménez, supra note 1071. 1078 INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION, COMPLIANCE ADVISOR OMBUDSMAN, ASSESSMENT OF A COMPLAINT SUBMITTED TO CAO IN RELATION TO THE MARLIN MINING PROJECT IN GUATEMALA ii, Sept. 7, 2005, available at http://www.cao-ombudsman.org/pdfs/CAO-Marlin-assessment-English-7Sep05.pdf. 1079 News Release, Oxfam America, World Bank Report Describes Mining Problems in Guatemala, Sept. 23, 2005, http://www.oxfamamerica.org/newsandpublications/news_updates/news_update.2005-09-23.3194264505. 1080 See News Release, Bank Information Center, Guatemala: Sicapapa community says No to Mining!, (July 1, 2005), available at http://www.bicusa.org/en/Article.2191.aspx. 1081 See News Release, Bank Information Center, Guatemalan Representatives Meet with the President of the World Bank, (Dec 7, 2005), available at http://www.bicusa.org/en/Article.2513.aspx.

123

members argue that this refusal of the popular referendum as a legitimate form of community expression, represents the denial to communities the status of equal stakeholders by the IFC, the Guatemalan government and Glamis Gold.1082

F. Venezuela

1. Mining on Indigenous Lands, Northwestern Venezuela In April 2005, between 600 and 2,000 indigenous people of the Bari, Yukpa, and Wayou

groups, joined by social and environmental activists, universities, NGOs and trade unions, marched on Caracas, the capital of Venezuela to protest the expansion of coal mining operations near their lands in the Sierra de Perija range and the Guajira peninsula.1083 The protestors asserted that coal mining is destroying their environment and their ability to maintain their way of life.1084 They demanded that President Hugo Chavez fulfill his duty to involve them in the permitting process and to demarcate their land.1085

The Sierra de Perija range and the Guajira peninsula, both along the Venezuela/Colombia border, are home to an estimated 400 million tons or more of coal reserves.1086 Initial coal operations began in 1987 in the Guasare mines of northwestern Venezuela, which produced eight million tons in 2004.1087 In 2005, a Venezuelan-owned company and a Brazilian corporation formed a consortium to undertake additional mining in the region with the goal of raising annual output to ten million tons within a decade.1088 Three mining operations are planned for the region, including one by Cao Seco Coal which will affect the water supply of 350 families.1089

Coal mining has already had negative impacts on local communities. Early promises by mining consortiums of employment, new roads and other services have not materialized.1090 In January 2005, there was a gas-oil leak of around 120,000 liters in the Paso del Diablo stream that killed fish, iguanas and squirrels, and contaminated farmland, depriving the nearby community of resources critical to their subsistence.1091 Local people complain that the rivers and streams have been polluted with chemical wastes, detergents and coal residue and that animals are being born with defects, and communities near the coal operations are forced to breathe smoke, threatening local people’s rights to water and health.1092 Transportation of the coal from the communities to ports for export also presents environmental and health problems for local communities, as transport trucks pollute air and water along the route.1093

1082 See News Release, Bank Information Center, Letter to World Bank EDs on the Marlin Mine, (June 12, 2006), available at http://www.bicusa.org/en/Article.2838.aspx. 1083 Indigenous People Protest Coal Mining, MINEWEB, Apr. 6, 2005, http://www.mineweb.net/sections/whats_new/429406.htm; See also Humberto Marquez, Environment: Chavez Pressured by Indigenous Over Coal Mining, IPS-INTER PRESS SERVICE, Apr. 4, 2005. 1084 See Marquez, supra note 1083. 1085 Id. 1086 Id. 1087 Id. 1088 Id. 1089 Hynes Embroiled in Venezuelan Coal Mining Row, IRISH INDEPENDENT, Mar. 31, 2005. 1090 Id. 1091 Id. 1092 Id. 1093 See Marquez, supra note 1083.

124

Venezuela’s 1999 Constitution emphasizes recognition and respect for indigenous land rights, culture, language, and customs.1094 While the new constitution requires demarcation of indigenous lands and awarding of collective land titles - a significant step forward for indigenous peoples' rights – those titles can exclude existing mines and mining concessions within indigenous territories. Indigenous groups, therefore, hope to secure land rights that include the rights to sub-surface mineral deposits, in order to protect their land and way of life.1095

Despite the new constitution’s language, the government has failed to abide by its constitutional mandate, and is instead violating indigenous people’s right to participation, health, clean water, a healthy environment, culture, and work.

1094 See BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA [Constitution] Ch. VIII, available at http://www.georgetown.edu/pdba/Constitutions/Venezuela/ven1999.html (last visited March 6, 2006). 1095 See News Release, Global Response Launches International Campaign with Indigenous People of Venezuela, (March 24, 2006), available at http://www.commondreams.org/news2006/0324-08.htm.

125

APPENDIX

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS

1. Afghanistan The 2004 Constitution ensures a “prosperous life and a sound environment for all those

residing in this land.” Preamble. It further states that the State is “obliged to adopt necessary measures for … proper exploitation of natural resources and the improvement of ecological conditions.” Chapter 1, Article 15.

2. The Republic of Albania The Constitution of 1998 states that “everyone has the right to be informed for the status of

the environment and its protection.” Part Two, Chapter IV, Article 56. It also states that “the State, within its constitutional powers and the means at its disposal, aims to supplement private initiative and responsibility with…a healthy and ecologically adequate environment for the present and future generations;” and “rational exploration of forests, waters, pastures and other natural resources on the basis of the principle of sustainable development.” Part Two, Chapter V, Article 59 (1e-1f).

3. The Republic of Algeria

The revised Constitution states, “every citizen has the duty to protect public property and the interests of the national collectivity and to respect the property of others.” Title I, Chapter V, Article 66. Public property “is an asset of the national collectivity” and “encompasses the subsoil, the mines and quarries, the sources of natural energy, the mineral, natural and living resources of the different zones, the natural maritime zone, the waters and the forests.” Id., Chapter III, Article 17.

4. The Principality of Andorra The 1993 Constitution provides that the “State has the task of ensuring the rational use of

the soil and of all the natural resources, so as to guarantee a befitting quality of life for all and, for the sake of the coming generations, to restore and maintain a reasonable ecological balance in the atmosphere, water and land, as well as to protect the autochthonous flora and fauna.” Title II, Chapter V, Article 31.

5. People’s Republic of Angola The 1992 Constitution provides that “all citizens shall have the right to live in a healthy

and unpolluted environment.” Part II, Article 24(1). The Constitution directs the State to “take the requisite measures to protect the environment and national species of flora and fauna throughout the national territory and maintain ecological balance.” Id., Article 24(2). The Constitution further provides that “acts that damage or directly or indirectly jeopardize conservation of the environment shall be punishable by law.” Id., Article 24(3).

6. Argentina The 1994 Constitution provides that “all residents enjoy the right to a healthy, balanced

environment which is fit for human development and by which productive activities satisfy current necessities without compromising those of future generations.” Part I, Chapter 2, Article 41. The Constitution directs the State to “provide for protecting this right, for utilizing natural

126

resources rationally, for preserving the natural and cultural patrimony and that of biological diversity, and for providing environmental information and education.” Id.

The Constitution establishes that “as a first priority, environmental damage shall bring about the obligation to repair it.” Id. The Constitution also makes it the duty of residents “to preserve the environment.” Id.

7. Austria

The 2000 Constitution establishes that “mining; forestry, including timber flotage; water rights; control and conservation of waters for the safe diversion of floods or for shipping and raft transport; maintenance of waterways” and other issues are of national concern and require legislation and regulation by the national government. Chapter I, Article 10(10). Additionally, the Constitution establishes that the government should take “measures to defend against dangerous stresses” that result from violations of emissions standards. Chapter I, Article 10(12).

8. The Republic of Armenia The 1995 Constitution provides that the “State shall ensure the protection and

reproduction of the environment.” Chapter 1, Article 10. The Constitution further provides that the owner of property may not exercise “the right to property . . . so as to cause damage to the environment.” Id., Article 8.

9. The Azerbaijan Republic The 1995 Constitution provides that “everyone has the right to live in a healthy

environment.” Part II, Chapter III, Article 39(I). The Constitution also establishes the right “to get compensation for damage rendered . . . due to the violations of ecological rights.” Id., Article 39(II). The Constitution further provides that “everyone has the right to collect information on the environmental situation.” Id.

10. The State of Bahrain The 1973 Constitution provides that the State has the duty to “ensure [the] preservation”

of all natural resources. Part II, Article 11.

11. The Republic of Belarus The 1996 Constitution provides that “everyone is entitled to a wholesome environment.”

Section II, Article 46. The Constitution makes it the duty of the State to “preserve and restore the environment.” Id. The Constitution also establishes the right to “compensation for loss or damage caused by the violation of [the right to a wholesome environment].” Id. The Constitution prohibits the use of property in a manner “harmful to the environment.” Id., Article 44. The Constitution further provides the right of the citizens to “receive, store and disseminate complete reliable and timely information . . . on the state of the environment.” Id., Article 34.

12. Belgium The 1994 Constitution provides that “everyone has the right to lead a life worthy of

human dignity”; this right expressly includes “the right to the protection of a sound environment.” Title II, Article 23(4).

127

13. The Republic of Benin

The 1990 Constitution provides that “everyone person has the right to a healthy, satisfying and lasting environment.” Title II, Article 27. The Constitution makes it the duty of the State to “watch over the protection of the environment.” Id. The Constitution also makes it the duty of every person to “defend the [environment].” Id.

The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, annexed to the Constitution of the Republic of Benin, provides that “all peoples have the right to a general satisfactory environment favorable to their development.” Part I, Chapter I, Article 24.

14. Bhutan The draft Constitution of Bhutan of 2005, states that “The Royal Government shall…[p]revent pollution and ecological degradation…(and) [e]nsure a safe and healthy environment.” Article 5, 2(b) and (d).1096

15. The Republic of Bolivia The amended 1967 Constitution makes it the duty of the State to “regulate the system of

exploitation of renewable natural resources, with provisions for their conservation and increment.” Part 3, Title 3, Article 170. The Constitution also makes it the duty of “every inhabitant of the national territory to respect and protect” assets in the patrimony of the nation. Id., Title 1, Article 137.

16. The Federative Republic of Brazil The Constitution, as amended in 1998, provides that “everyone has the right to an

ecologically balanced environment, which is a public good for the people’s use and is essential for a healthy life.” Title VII, Chapter VI, Article 225. “The Government and the community have a duty to defend and preserve the environment for future generations.” Id. In particular, the Government has the responsibility to:

I. preserve and restore essential ecological processes and provide for ecological management of species and ecosystems;

II. preserve the diversity and integrity of the Country’s genetic patrimony and to supervise entities dedicated to research and manipulation of genetic material;

III. define, in all units of the Federation, territorial spaces and their components that are to be specially protected, with any change or and suppression permitted only through law, prohibiting any use that compromises the integrity of the characteristics that justify their protection;

IV. require, as provided by law, a prior environmental impact study, which shall be made public, for installation of works or activities that may cause significant degradation of the environment;

V. control production, commercialization and employment of techniques, methods and substances that carry a risk to life, the quality of life and the environment;

VI. promote environmental education at all levels of teaching and public awareness of the need to preserve the environment;

1096 The draft Constitution of Bhutan is awaiting referendum.

128

VII. protect the fauna and the flora, prohibiting, as provided by law, all practices that jeopardize their ecological functions, cause extinction of species or subject animals to cruelty.

Id., Paragraph 1.

The Constitution provides that “the Brazilian Amazon Forest, the Atlantic Forest, the Serra do Mar, the Pantanal of Mato Grosso, and the Coastal Zone . . . shall be utilized, as provided by law, under conditions assuring preservation of the environment.” Id., Paragraph 4.

The Constitution also provides that “conduct and activities considered harmful to the environment shall subject the infractors, be they individuals or legal entities, to criminal and administrative sanctions.” Id., Paragraph 3. The Constitution also establishes the general obligation of such infractors to “repair the damages caused” to the environment. Id. The Constitution also requires “those who exploit mineral resources . . . to restore any environmental degradation.” Id., Paragraph 2. The Constitution makes inalienable “vacant governmental lands or lands seized by the State through discriminatory actions, which are necessary to protect natural ecosystems.” Id., Paragraph 5.

17. The Republic of Bulgaria The 1991 Constitution provides that “citizens have the right to a healthy and favorable

environment.” Chapter 2, Article 55. The Constitution makes it the duty of the State to “ensure the protection and conservation of the environment, the sustenance of animals and the maintenance of their diversity, and the sensible utilization of the country’s natural wealth and resources.” Chapter 1, Article 15. The Constitution further provides that citizens have an “obligation to protect the environment.” Chapter 2, Article 55.

18. Burkina Faso The amended 1991 Constitution recognizes “the right to a healthy environment.” Title I,

Chapter IV, Article 29. The Constitution also makes “the protection, the defense and the promotion of the environment” a “duty for all.” Id. The Constitution also establishes the right of every citizen “to initiate an action or to join a collective action under the form of a petition against the acts . . . affecting the environment.” Id., Article 30.

19. The Republic of Burundi The 1998 Constitution Act of Transition states that “public property is sacred and inviolable. Every person has the duty to respect it scrupulously and protect it.” Title III, Part 2, Article 49.

20. The Kingdom of Cambodia The 1993 Constitution provides that the “State shall protect the environment and balance

of abundant natural resources and establish a precise plan of management of land, water, air, wind, geology, ecologic system, mines, energy, petrol and gas, rocks and sand, gems, forests and forestrial products, wildlife, fish and aquatic resources.” Chapter V, Article 59.

21. The Republic of Cameroon The amended 1972 Constitution declares that “every person shall have a right to a healthy

environment,” that the “State shall ensure the protection and improvement of the environment,”

129

and that the “protection of the environment shall be the duty of every citizen.” Preamble (Part XII, Article 65 provides that the “Preamble shall be part and parcel of this Constitution”).

22. The Republic of Cape Verde The 1992 Constitution provides that “everyone shall have the right to a healthy,

ecologically balanced environment.” Part II, Title III, Article 70(1). The Constitution makes it the duty of the State to “protect the land, nature, natural resources and environment.” Part I, Title I, Article 7(j). The Constitution directs “the state and municipalities, with the cooperation of associations which defend the environment,” to “adopt policies to defend and preserve the environment.” Part II, Title III, Article 70(2). The Constitution places an affirmative duty on the State to “stimulate and support the creation of associations to defend the environment and protect natural resources.” Id., Article 70(3). The Constitution also makes it a duty of everyone to “defend and conserve the environment.” Id., Article 70(1).

23. The Republic of Chad The 1996 Constitution provides that “every person has the right to a healthy

environment.” Title II, Chapter I, Article 47. The Constitution directs “the State and the decentralized Territorial Collectivities” to “see to the protection of the environment.” Id., Article 48. The Constitution also makes it the duty of every citizen to respect and protect the environment. Id., Chapter II, Article 52.

24. The Chechen Republic (Chechnya) The 1992 Constitution provides that “the citizens of Chechen Republic have the right to a

favorable environment.” Section 2, Article 34(1). The Constitution makes it the duty of the State to “take necessary measures for protection of the land, its depths and environment in interests of protection of health of the people and maintenance of normal conditions of their life.” Section 1, Article 11. The Constitution further establishes the right to compensation for “damage caused to citizen, his health or property by wrongful action in the area of nature utilization.” Section 2, Article 34(2).

25. The Republic of Chile The amended 1980 Constitution provides for the “right to live in an environment free

from contamination.” Chapter III, Article 19(8). The Constitution makes it the duty of the State to “watch over the protection of this right and the preservation of nature.” Id. The Constitution authorizes the State to enact laws, which “establish specific restrictions on the exercise of certain rights or freedoms in order to protect the environment.” Id. The Constitution, in particular, authorizes the State to “establish the manner to acquire property and to use, enjoy and dispose of it” for the purpose of “the conservation of the environmental patrimony.” Id., Article 19(24).

The Constitution also establishes the right to appeal to the courts for protection “when the right to live in a contamination-free atmosphere has been affected by an arbitrary or unlawful action imputable to an authority or a specific person.” Id., Article 20. The Constitution requires the court to “immediately take the steps that it deems necessary to . . . ensure due protection to the person affected.” Id.

26. The People’s Republic of China The 1982 Constitution makes it the duty of the State to “ensure the rational use of natural

resources and protect rare animals and plants.” Chapter 1, Article 9. The Constitution also

130

provides that the “State protects and improves the living environment and the ecological environment, and prevents and remedies pollution and other public hazards.” Id., Article 26. In addition, the Constitution states that “the State organizes and encourages afforestation and the protection of forests.” Id. The Constitution also prohibits the “appropriation or damage of natural resources by any organization or individual by whatever means.” Id., Article 9.

27. Colombia

The 1991 Constitution provides that “every individual has the right to enjoy a healthy environment.” Title II, Chapter 3, Article 79. The Constitution requires the law to “guarantee the community’s participation in the decisions that may affect [the environment].” Id. The Constitution makes it the duty of the State “to protect the diversity and integrity of the environment, to conserve the areas of special ecological importance, and to foster education for the achievement of these ends.” Id. The Constitution directs the State “to plan the handling and use of natural resources in order to guarantee their sustainable development, conservation, restoration, or replacement,” id., Article 80, and additionally, “to caution and control the factors of environmental deterioration, impose legal sanctions, and demand the repair of any damage caused.” Id. The Constitution also directs the State to “cooperate with other nations in the protection of the ecosystems located in the border areas.” Id.

The Constitution makes it a duty of every individual “to protect the country’s cultural and natural resources and to keep watch that a healthy environment is being preserved.” Id., Chapter 5, Article 95.

28. The Federal Islamic Republic of the Comoros The 1996 Constitution proclaims “the right of all Comorans to health.” Preamble.

29. The Republic of the Congo The 1992 Constitution provides that “each citizen shall have the right to a healthy,

satisfactory and enduring environment.” Title II, Article 46. The Constitution directs the State to “strive for the protection and the conservation of the environment.” Id.

The Constitution establishes the obligation to compensate for “all pollution resulting from an economic activity”; such compensation is “for the benefit of the populations of the exploited zones.” Id. The Constitution also makes it the duty of each citizen to “defend the [environment],” and of each individual “to contribute to the improvement of the quality of life and the preservation of his natural milieu as well as to the protection of the environment.” Title III, Article 65. The Constitution also makes it the duty of every individual “not to negatively affect his environment nor the well-being of his neighbors.” Id.

30. The Republic of Costa Rica The amended 1949 Constitution provides for the right of every person “to a healthy and

ecologically balanced environment.” Title V, Sole Chapter, Article 50. The Constitution directs the State to “guarantee, defend and preserve this right.” Title V, Sole Chapter, Article 50.) The Constitution also directs the State to enact laws which “will determine the corresponding responsibilities and sanctions.” Id. The Constitution also provides for the right of every person “to denounce those acts which infringe this right and to claim reparation for harm caused.” Id.

131

31. The Republic of Croatia

The 1990 Constitution provides that “everyone has the right to a healthy life.” Section III, Part 3, Article 69. The Constitution directs the State to “ensure citizens the right to a healthy environment.” Id.

The Constitution also directs “citizens, government, public and economic bodies and associations . . . to pay special attention to the protection of human health, nature and the human environment.” Id.

32. The Republic of Cuba The Amended Constitution of 1992 states that the “State protects the environment and

natural resources of the country. It recognizes their close link with the sustainable economy and social development for making human life more sensible, and for ensuring the survival, welfare, and security of present and future generations. It corresponds to the competent organs to implement this policy. It is the duty of the citizens to contribute to the protection of the water and the atmosphere, and to the conservation of the soil, flora, fauna and all the rich potential of nature.” Chapter I, Article 27.

33. The Czech Republic The 1992 Constitution, as amended, provides that “everybody has the right to a favorable

environment.” Chapter 4, Article 35(1). The Constitution also provides that “in exercising his rights nobody may endanger or cause damage to the living environment, natural resources, the wealth of natural species, and cultural monuments beyond limits set by law.” Id., Article 35(3). In particular, the Constitution provides that the exercise of ownership rights “ must not cause damage to human health, nature and the environment beyond legal limits.” Chapter 2, Part 1, Article 11.

34. Democratic Republic of Congo The 2003 Draft Constitution of the Transition states that “[a]ll Congolese shall have the

right to a healthy environment that is favourable to their development.” Title III, Article 54. It further establishes that “the public authorities and citizens shall have the duty to ensure the protection of the environment according to conditions defined by the law.” Id.

35. East Timor The 2002 Constitution states that “all have the right to a humane, healthy, and ecologically balanced environment and the duty to protect it and improve it for the benefit of the future generations.” Title III, Article 61(1). The Constitution provides that it is the responsibility of the State to “recognize the need to preserve and rationalize natural resources.” Id. Article 61(2). Additionally, “the State shall promote actions aimed at protecting the environment and safeguarding the sustainable development of the economy.”

36. The Republic of Ecuador

The 1998 Constitution provides for the “right to live in an environment that is healthy and ecologically balanced, and that guarantees sustainable development.” Chapter 5, Section 2, Article 86. The Constitution requires the State to enact laws to preserve the environment, conserve ecosystems and biodiversity, prevent environmental pollution, restore degraded natural spaces, and establish a system of protected natural areas that will guarantee the conservation of

132

biodiversity. Id. In case of doubt concerning the negative environmental consequences of an action or omission, the State is to implement preventive measures even if there is no scientific evidence of harm. Id., Article 90.

The Constitution also requires the establishment of procedures for holding responsible those who harm the environment. Id., Article 87. The State is also responsible for environmental damage caused by its agents or institutions. Id., Article 91.

The Constitution guarantees the prior informed participation of affected communities in governmental decisions affecting the environment, id., Article 88, and provides for the right of any person to use legal actions to protect the environment. Id., Article 91.

37. El Salvador The amended 1983 Constitution provides that “every child has the right to live in familial

and environmental conditions that permit his integral development, for which he shall have the protection of the State.” Title II, Chapter II, Section 1, Article 34. The Constitution makes it a duty of the State to “control the quality of food products and the environmental conditions that may affect health and well-being.” Id., Article 69.

38. Equatorial Guinea The 1991 Constitution provides that the State “shall assure conservation of nature.” Title

I, Article 6.

39. Eritrea The 1997 Constitution directs the State “to work to bring about a balanced and

sustainable development throughout the country, and shall use all available means to ensure all citizens to improve their livelihood in a sustainable manner, through their development.” Chapter II, Article 10(2). The Draft Constitution makes it the responsibility of the State to “regulate all land, water and natural resources and to ensure their management in a balanced and sustainable manner and in the interest of the present and future generations.” Id., Article 10(3). The Draft Constitution further directs the State to “create the right conditions for securing the participation of the people to safeguard the environment.” Id.

40. The Republic of Estonia The 1992 Constitution authorizes the law to restrict a person’s right to freedom of

movement in order to “protect the environment.” Chapter II, Article 34.

41. The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia

The 1995 Constitution provides that “all persons have the right to a clean and healthy environment.” Chapter 3, Part 2, Article 44(1). The Constitution also provides for the right of the Ethiopian people “to sustainable development.” Id., Article 43(1).

42. Fiji The amended 1990 constitution states that, in the extraction of minerals from property belonging to Fijian citizens, account must be taken of “the risk of environmental damage.” Section 186, 4(b).

133

43. Finland

The amended 1919 Constitution directs “public authorities to strive to ensure for everyone the right to a healthy environment as well as the opportunity to influence decision-making concerning his living environment.” Part II, Section 14a.

The Constitution also states that “everyone shall be responsible for the natural world and for its diversity, for the environment and for the cultural heritage.” Id.

44. France The amended 1958 Constitution includes an Environment Charter, which states that all

French citizens have the right to live in a “balanced environment, favorable to human health.” Preamble. It further calls for the application of the precautionary principle in any circumstance that may pose irreparable harm to the environment, calls for the promotion of sustainable development, and recognizes the right of individuals to access to information and participation in environmental decision-making. Articles 5, 6 and 7. Additionally, the Charter enshrines several new principles, including polluter-pays and prevention, into national law and mandates their application in policymaking. Articles 3 and 4.

45. The Republic of Georgia The 1995 Constitution provides that “all have the right to live in a healthy environment.”

Chapter 2, Article 37(3). The Constitution also provides that “with a view of the creation of a healthy environment, in conformity with the ecological and economic interests of society, in the interest of current and future generations, the state guarantees the protection of the surrounding environment and rational use of nature.” Id., Article 37(4).

The Constitution further provides that “a person has the right to receive complete, objective and timely information concerning the state of the environment of his residence and working conditions.” Id., Article 37(5).

46. Federal Republic of Germany

The amended 1949 Constitution provides that “the State protects . . . with responsibility to future generations the natural foundations of life.” Chapter I, Article 20a.

47. The Republic of Ghana The 1992 Constitution directs the State to “take appropriate measures needed to protect

and safeguard the national environment for posterity,” and to “seek cooperation with other states and bodies for purposes of protecting the wider international environment for mankind.” Chapter 6, Article 36(9).

The Constitution also makes it the duty of every citizen “to protect and safeguard the environment.” Chapter 5, Article 41(k).

48. Greece The 1975 Constitution provides that “the protection of the natural and cultural

environment constitutes a duty of the State.” Part 2, Article 24(1). The Constitution further provides that “the State is bound to adopt special preventive or repressive measures for the preservation of the environment.” Id.

134

49. The Republic of Guatemala

The amended 1985 Constitution declares “the right to health” to be a “fundamental right of the human being without any discrimination.” Title II, Chapter II, Section VII, Article 93. The Constitution makes it the obligation of “the State, the municipalities, and the inhabitants of the natural territory . . . to promote social, economic, and technological development that would prevent the contamination of the environment and maintain the ecological balance.” Id., Article 97. The Constitution directs the State to “issue all the necessary regulations to guarantee that the use of the fauna, flora, land, and water may be realized rationally, obviating their depredation.” Id.

50. The Co-Operative Republic of Guyana The 1980 Constitution provides that “in the interests of the present and future

generations, the State will protect and make rational use of its land, mineral and water resources, as well as its fauna and flora, and will take all appropriate measures to conserve and improve the environment.” Part 1, Chapter II, Article 36.

The Constitution also makes it a duty of every citizen “to participate in activities designed to improve the environment.” Id.

51. Haiti

The Constitution of 1987 strictly forbids “any practice that might disturb the ecological balance.” Title XI, Chapter II, Article 253. The Constitution forbids the introduction “into the country, wastes or residues of any kind from foreign sources.” Id., Article 258. The Constitution directs the State “to organize the enhancement of natural sites to ensure their protection and make them accessible to all,” id., Article 254, and “to encourage the development of local sources of energy” in order to “protect forest reserves and expand the plant coverage.” Id., Article 255.

The Constitution authorizes the State to punish violations of the law, which “specifies the conditions for protecting flora and fauna.” Id., Article 257. The Constitution also makes it a duty of the citizen to “respect and protect the environment.” Title III, Chapter III, Article 52-1(h).

52. The Republic of Honduras The amended 1982 Constitution recognizes the “right to the protection of one’s health”

and directs the State to “maintain a satisfactory environment for the protection of everyone’s health.” Title III, Chapter VII, Article 145.

53. The Republic of Hungary The amended 1949 Constitution states that the “Republic of Hungary recognises and

implements everyone’s right to a healthy environment.” Chapter I, Article 18. The Constitution also declares that “everyone living within the territories of the Republic of Hungary has the right to the highest possible level of physical and mental health” and directs the State to implement this right “through the protection of the . . . natural environment.” Chapter XII, Article 70/D.

54. India The amended 1950 Constitution directs the State “to endeavor to protect and improve the

environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country.” Part IV, Article 48A.

135

The Constitution also makes it the duty of every citizen of India “to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures.” Part IVA, Article 51A.

55. The Islamic Republic of Iran The amended 1979 Constitution provides that “the preservation of the environment, in

which the present as well as the future generations have a right to flourishing social existence, is regarded as a public duty in the Islamic Republic.” Chapter IV, Article 50. The Constitution forbids “economic and other activities that inevitably involve pollution of the environment or cause irreparable damage to it.” Id.

56. The Republic of Kazakhstan The 1995 Constitution directs the State to “set objectives for the protection of the

environment favorable for the life and health of the people.” Section I, Article 31(1).

The Constitution also makes it an obligation of citizens to “preserve nature and protect natural resources.” Id., Article 38. The Constitution further hold officials accountable “for the concealment of facts and circumstances endangering the life and health of the people.” Id., Article 31(2).

57. The State of Kuwait

The 1962 Constitution directs the State to ensure the preservation of natural resources. Part II, Article 21.

58. The Kyrghyz Republic (Kyrghyzstan)

The 1993 Constitution provides that “citizens of the Kyrghyz Republic shall have the right to a healthy, safe environment.” Chapter II, Section 3, Article 35(1). The Constitution also establishes the right to “compensation for the damage caused to one’s health and property by the activity in the sphere of nature usage,” id., and makes it the “sacred” duty of every citizen to protect the environment and natural resources. Id., Article 35(2).

59. Lao People’s Democratic Republic The 1991 Constitution directs all organizations and citizens to “protect the environment

and natural resources: land, underground, forests, fauna, water sources and atmosphere.” Chapter II, Article 17.

60. The Republic of Latvia

The Amended Constitution of 1922 (amended 1998) provides that the “State shall protect the right of everyone to live in a benevolent environment by providing information about environmental conditions and by promoting the preservation and improvement of the environment.” Section 8, Article 115.

61. The Republic of Lithuania

The 1992 Constitution provides that “the State and each individual must protect the environment from harmful influences.” Chapter 4, Article 53. The Constitution also directs the State to “concern itself with the protection of the natural environment, its fauna and flora, separate objects of nature and particularly valuable districts,” and to “supervise the moderate

136

utilization of natural resources as well as their restoration and augmentation.” Id., Article 54. The Constitution prohibits “the exhaustion of land and entrails of the earth, the pollution of waters and air, the production of radioactive impact, as well as the impoverishment of fauna and flora.” Id.

62. The Republic of Macedonia The 1991 Constitution provides that “everyone has the right to a healthy environment to

live in,” and directs the State to establish conditions for the exercise of this right. Chapter II, Part 2, Article 43. The Constitution recognizes the fundamental need for “proper urban and rural planning to promote a congenial human environment, as well as ecological protection and development.” Chapter I, Article 8.

The Constitution makes it everyone’s obligation to “promote and protect the environment.” Chapter II, Part 2, Article 43.

63. The Republic of Madagascar The 1998 Constitution provides that “the State, with the participation of the autonomous

provinces, assures the protection, the conservation, and the improvement of the environment through appropriate means.” Title II, Section II, Article 39. The Constitution makes it everyone’s duty to “respect the environment.” Id.

64. The Republic of Malawi The 1994 Constitution directs the State to “actively promote the welfare and development

of the people of Malawi by progressively adopting and implementing policies and legislation aimed at . . . manag[ing] the environment responsibly in order to (i) prevent the degradation of the environment, (ii) provide a healthy living and working environment for the people of Malawi, (iii) accord full recognition to the rights of future generations by means of environmental protection and the sustainable development of natural resources, and (iv) conserve and enhance the biological diversity of Malawi.” Chapter III, Article 13(d).

65. The Republic of Mali The 1992 Constitution provides that “every person has the right to a healthy

environment.” Title I, Article 15. The Constitution further provides that “the protection, defense and promotion of the environment are an obligation for all and for the State.” Id.

66. Malta The amended 1964 Constitution directs the State to “safeguard the landscape . . . of the

Nation.” Chapter II, Article 9.

67. Mexico The amended 1917 Constitution directs the State to take “necessary measures . . . to

preserve and restore the ecological balance [and] to avoid the destruction of natural resources.” Title I, Chapter I, Article 27.

68. The Federated States of Micronesia The Preamble to the amended 1978 Constitution “affirm[s] [the people of Micronesia’s]

common wish . . . to preserve the heritage of the past, and to protect the promise of the future.” Preamble. The Constitution prohibits the testing, storing, using or disposing of radioactive

137

materials, toxic chemicals, or other harmful substances within the jurisdiction of the Federated Sates of Micronesia, without the express approval of the national government of the Federated States of Micronesia. Article XIII, Section 2.

69. The Republic of Moldova The 1994 Constitution provides that “every human being has the right to live in an

environment that is ecologically safe for life and health, to obtain healthy food products.” Title II, Chapter II, Article 37(1). The Constitution holds “private individuals and legal entities” responsible for “any damages they may cause to personal health and property due to an ecological offense.” Id., Article 37(4). The Constitution provides that the “right of private property carries with it the duty to observe the rules regarding the protection of the environment.” Id., Article 46(5). The Constitution also makes it “the duty of every citizen to protect the natural environment.” Title II, Chapter III, Article 59.

The Constitution also provides that “the State guarantees every citizen the right of free access to truthful information regarding the state of the natural environment, the living and working conditions, and the quality of food products and household appliances.” Title II, Chapter II, Article 37(2). The Constitution further provides that “nondisclosure or falsification of information regarding factors detrimental to human health constitute offenses punishable by law.” Id., Article 37(3).

70. Mongolia The 1992 Constitution, as amended, provides that “the citizens of Mongolia shall enjoy…

the right to a healthy and safe environment, and to be protected against environmental pollution and ecological imbalance.” Chapter Two, Article 16(2). The Constitution further provides that “the land, its subsoil, forests, water, fauna and flora and other natural resources shall be subject to…. state protection.” Id., Article 6(1).

The Constitution authorizes the State to “hold responsible the landowners in connection with the manner the land is used, to exchange or take it over with compensation on the grounds of special public need, or confiscate the land if it is used in a manner adverse to the health of the population, the interests of environmental protection and national security.” Chapter One, Article 6(4). The Constitution also makes it a “sacred duty” for every citizen to protect nature and the environment. Chapter Two, Article 17(2).

71. The Republic of Mozambique

The 1990 Constitution provides that “all citizens shall have the right to live in . . . a balanced natural environment.” Part II, Chapter I, Article 72. The Constitution directs the State to “promote efforts to guarantee the ecological balance and the conservation and preservation of the environment for the betterment of the quality of life of its citizens.” Part I, Chapter IV, Article 37. The Constitution also makes it a duty of all citizens to “defend” the natural environment. Part II, Chapter I, Article 72.

72. The Republic of Namibia The 1990 Constitution directs the State to “actively promote and maintain the welfare of

the people by adopting, inter alia, policies aimed at . . . maintenance of ecosystems, essential ecological processes and biological diversity of Namibia and utilization of living natural resources on a sustainable basis for the benefit of all Namibians, both present and future.”

138

Chapter 11, Article 95(l). The Constitution also requires the government to “provide measures against the dumping or recycling of foreign nuclear and toxic waste on Namibian territory.” Id.

73. The Kingdom of Nepal The 1990 Constitution directs the State to “give priority to the protection of the

environment and also to the prevention of its further damage due to physical development activities by increasing the awareness of the general public about environmental cleanliness, and . . . [to] make arrangements for the special protection of the rare wildlife, the forests and the vegetation.” Part 4, Article 26.

74. The Kingdom of the Netherlands The amended 1983 Constitution provides that “it shall be the concern of the authorities to

keep the country habitable and to protect and improve the environment.” Chapter I, Article 21.

75. The Republic of Nicaragua The amended 1986 Constitution provides that “Nicaraguans have the right to live in a

healthy environment.” Title IV, Chapter III, Article 60. The Constitution makes it the obligation of the State “to preserve, conserve and recover the environment and the natural resources.” Id. The Constitution also provides that “the preservation of the environment, and the conservation, development and rational exploitation of the natural resources are responsibilities of the State.” Title VI, Article 102.

76. The Republic of Niger The 1996 Constitution provides that “each person has the right to a healthy environment.”

Title II, Article 27. The Constitution makes it the duty of the State to protect the environment. Id. The Constitution directs the State to regulate the “stockpiling, moving and evacuation of toxic wastes . . . situated on national property.” Id. The Constitution further provides that “the transit, importation, stockpiling, burial, dumping on the national territory of toxic wastes or foreign pollutants . . . constitutes a crime against the Nation punishable by law.” Id.

77. Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) The amended 1972 Constitution states that the government “shall adopt measures to

protect the environment…, preserve and promote the natural environment and prevent environmental pollution so as to provide the people with a hygienic environment and working conditions.” Chapter 3, Article 57.

78. The Kingdom of Norway

The amended 1814 Constitution provides that “every person has a right to an environment that is conducive to health and to natural surrounding[s] whose productivity and diversity are preserved.” Section E, Article 110b. The Constitution mandates that “natural resources should be made use of on the basis of comprehensive long-term considerations whereby this right will be safeguarded for future generations as well.” Id.

“In order to safeguard their right [to a healthy environment],” the Constitution establishes the right of citizens “to be informed of the state of the natural environment and of the effects of any encroachments on nature that are planned or commenced.” Id.

139

79. The Republic of Palau

The amended 1981 Constitution directs the national government to “take positive action to . . . conserv[e] a beautiful, healthful and resourceful natural environment.” Article VI.

80. The State of Palestine The draft Constitution, as revised in May 2003, establishes that the State “shall strive to

achieve a clean, balanced environment.” Article 15. It further provides that environmental protection is an “official and community responsibility” and that acts of environmental harm are punishable by law. Id.

81. The Republic of Panama The amended 1972 Constitution provides that “the State has the fundamental obligation

to guarantee that its population lives in a healthy environment, free of contamination (pollution), and where air, water and foodstuffs satisfy the requirements for proper development of human life.” Title III, Chapter 7, Article 114. The Constitution also provides that it is the obligation of the State, and all inhabitants of the national territory, to “promote economic and social development that prevents environmental contamination, maintains ecological balance, and avoids the destruction of ecosystems.” Id., Article 115. The Constitution directs the State to “regulate, supervise, and apply, at the proper time, the measures necessary to guarantee rational use of, and benefit from, land, river and sea life, as well as forests, lands and waters, to avoid their misuse, and to ensure their preservation, renewal, and permanence.” Id., Article 116. The Constitution further directs the State to regulate “benefits gained from non-renewable natural resources . . . to avoid social, economic and environmental abuses that could result.” Id., Article 117.

82. The Independent State of Papua New Guinea The amended 1975 Constitution establishes the goal that the country’s natural resources

and environment “be conserved and used for the collective benefit of all and be replenished for the benefit of future generations.” Section: “National Goals and Directive Principles” 10. The Constitution accordingly calls for “(1) wise use to be made of natural resources and the environment . . . in the interests of development and in trust for future generations; and (2) the conservation and replenishment, for the benefit of ourselves and posterity, of the environment and its sacred, scenic, and historical qualities; and (3) all necessary steps to be taken to give adequate protection to our valued birds, animals, fish, insects, plants and trees.” Id.

The Constitution makes it the obligation of all persons “to safeguard the national wealth, resources and environment in the interests not only of the present generation but also of future generations.” Section: “Basic Social Obligations.”

83. The Republic of Paraguay The 1992 Constitution provides that “everyone has the right to live in a healthy,

ecologically balanced environment.” Title II, Chapter I, Section About the Environment, Article 7. Thus, “priority objectives of social interest” are “the preservation, recovery, and improvement of the environment, as well as efforts to reconcile these goals with comprehensive human development.” Id. The Constitution authorizes the law to “restrict or prohibit those activities that are considered hazardous” to the environment, id., and to regulate “activities that are likely to cause environmental changes” and “define and establish sanctions for ecological crimes.” Id.,

140

Article 8. The Constitution specifically prohibits the introduction of toxic waste into the country. Id. The Constitution further provides that “any damage to the environment will entail an obligation to restore and to pay for damage.” Id.

83. Peru The 1993 Constitution authorizes the State to “determine national environmental policy.”

The Constitution directs the State to promote “the sustainable use of its natural resources,” Title III, Chapter III, Article 67, “the preservation of biological diversity and of natural protected areas” and “sustainable development of Amazonia with adequate legislation.” Id., Article 68.

84. The Republic of the Philippines The 1986 Constitution provides that “the State shall protect and advance the right of the

people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.” Article II, Section 16. The Constitution requires the State to take conservation and ecological concerns into account in developing regulations concerning the use and ownership of property. Article XII, Section 2. The Constitution makes it the duty of the State to “protect, develop, and conserve” communal marine and fishing resources, both inland and offshore. Article XIII, Section 7.

85. The Republic of Poland

The 1997 Constitution makes it the duty of public authorities to protect the environment. Chapter II, Article 74(2). The Constitution directs the authorities to “pursue policies ensuring the ecological safety of current and future generations.” Id., Article 74(1). The Constitution further directs the authorities to “support the activities of citizens to protect and improve the quality of the environment.” Id., Article 74(4).

The Constitution also provides that “everyone is obligated to care for the quality of the environment and shall be held responsible for causing its degradation.” Id., Article 86.

86. The Portuguese Republic

The 1976 Constitution, as amended, provides that “all have a right to a healthy and ecologically balanced human environment.” Part I, Title III, Chapter II, Article 66(1). The Constitution makes it a fundamental responsibility of the State to “protect and enhance the cultural heritage of the Portuguese people, to protect nature and environment, conserve natural resources and to ensure the proper development of the national territory.” Article 9(e). The Constitution requires the State “to prevent and control pollution, and its effects, and harmful forms of erosion,” to make ecological balance an objective in national planning, to establish nature reserves and guarantee nature conservation, and to “promote the rational use of natural resources, while safeguarding their capacity for renewal and ecological stability.” Part I, Title III, Chapter II, Article 66(2). The Constitution further provides that, “in economic and social matters” a primary duty of the State is to adopt a national policy for energy that is in keeping with conservation of natural resources and a balanced ecology.” Part II, Title I, Article 81 (l).

87. Qatar The 2003 Constitution provides that the State “shall preserve the environment and its

natural balance in order to achieve comprehensive and sustainable development for all generations.” Part II, Article 33.

141

88. Romania

The 1991 Constitution requires the State to ensure “the restoration and protection of the environment, as well as the preservation of ecological balance.” Title IV, Article 134(2)(e).

The Constitution also provides that “the right to own property implies an obligation to comply with tasks related to environmental protection.” Title II, Chapter II, Article 41(6).

The Constitutional Revision Law No. 429/2003 of October 29, 2003 amends the 1991 Constitution to explicitly recognize the right to a healthy environment, stating that “[t]he State recognizes the right of every person to a healthy, well-preserved and balanced environment.” Article 35(1).

89. The Russian Federation The 1993 Constitution provides that “everyone shall have the right to a favorable

environment.” Section 1, Chapter 2, Article 42. The Constitution makes it a fundamental principle that “land and other natural resources shall be used and protected in the Russian Federation as the basis of the life and activity of the peoples living on their respective territories.” Id., Article 9(1).

The Constitution also establishes the right of every person “to compensation for the damage caused to his or her health or property by ecological violations.” Id., Article 42. The Constitution further prohibits owners of land or natural resources from using their property in a manner that harms the environment. Id., Article 36(2). The Constitution also makes it everyone’s obligation to “preserve nature and the environment, and care for natural wealth.” Id., Article 58.

The Constitution further provides that everyone has the right to “reliable information” about the condition of the environment. Id., Article 42.

90. Sao Tome and Principe The amended 1975 Constitution makes preservation of the “harmonious balance of nature

and of the environment” a prime objective of the State. Part I, Article 10(c). The Constitution provides for the right of all to “housing and to an environment of human life.” Part II, Article 48(1).

The Constitution also makes it the duty of all to “defend” the environment. Id., Article 48(1). The Constitution also provides that “it is incumbent upon the State to promote the public health which has as objectives the physical and mental well-being of the populations and their balanced fitting into the socio-ecological environment in which they live.” Id., Article 49.

91. Saudi Arabia The 1992 Constitution provides that “the State works toward protecting and improving

the environment, as well as keep it from being harmed.” Chapter 5, Article 32.

142

92. The Republic of Seychelles

The 1993 Constitution “recognizes the right of every person to live in and enjoy a clean, healthy and ecologically balanced environment.” Chapter III, Part I, Article 38. The Constitution directs the State to “to take measures to promote the protection, preservation and improvement of the environment,” and “to promote public awareness of the need to protect, preserve and improve the environment.” Id., Article 38(a), (c). The Constitution also makes it the duty of every citizen to “protect, preserve and improve the environment.” Id., Part II, Article 40(e).

93. The Slovak Republic The 1992 Constitution, as amended, provides that “every person has the right to a

favorable environment.” Chapter 2, Section VI, Article 44(1). The Constitution directs the State to “provide for an efficient utilization of natural resources, a balanced ecology, an effective protection of the environment.” Id., Article 44(4).

The Constitution also provides that “every person is obliged to protect and cultivate the environment and cultural heritage,” id., Article 44(2), and that “nobody may endanger or damage the environment, natural resources and cultural monuments beyond the limits stipulated by law.” Id., Article 44(3). The Constitution also prohibits the exercise of ownership rights in a manner that damages the environment. Id., Section II, Article 20(3).

The Constitution further provides the right of every person to “complete and current information on the condition of the environment and the causes and consequences of this State.” Id., Section VI, Article 45.

94. The Republic of Slovenia

The 1991 Constitution, as amended, provides that “all persons shall have the right to a healthy living environment.” Section III, Article 72. The Constitution also makes it the duty of the State to “ensure a healthy living environment.” Id. The Constitution directs the State to “define under what conditions and to what extent the causer of damage is obliged to make restitution for damage to the living environment.” Id. The Constitution makes it the obligation of the State and local community to “ensure the preservation of the natural and cultural heritage,” and of all persons “to protect natural points of interest and rarities and cultural monuments.” Id., Article 73.

95. The Republic of South Africa

The 1996 Constitution provides that “everyone has the right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being,” and “to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations.” Chapter 2, Article 24. The Constitution directs the State to “prevent pollution and ecological degradation,” “promote conservation,” and “secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development.” Id., Article 24(b)(i)-(iii).

96. The Republic of Korea (South Korea) The 1988 Constitution provides for the right of all citizens “to a healthy and pleasant

environment.” Chapter II, Article 35(1). The Constitution directs the state and all citizens to “endeavor to protect the environment.” Id. The Constitution directs the State to “protect the

143

land and natural resources,” and to “establish a plan necessary for their balanced development and utilization.” Chapter IX, Article 120(2).

97. Spain The 1978 Constitution provides that “everyone has the right to enjoy an environment

suitable for the development of the person.” Title I, Chapter III, Article 45(1). The Constitution directs the public authorities to “concern themselves with the rational use of all natural resources for the purpose of protecting and improving the quality of life and protecting and restoring the environment.” Id., Article 45(2).

The Constitution also makes it a duty of everyone to preserve the environment. Id., Article 45(1). The State is to establish penal and administrative sanctions for environmental harm, and those responsible for such harm “shall be obliged to repair the damage caused.” Id., Article 45(3).

98. The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka The 1978 Constitution provides that the “State shall protect, preserve and improve the

environment for the benefit of the community.” Chapter VI, Article 27(14). The Constitution also makes it the duty of every person to “protect nature and conserve its riches.” Id., Article 28(f).

99. The Democratic Republic of Sudan The Interim National Constitution states that “The people of the Sudan shall have the right to

a clean and diverse environment.” Ch. II, Art.10 (1). The Interim Constitution goes on to state that “every citizen shall… preserve the natural environment.” Ch. 3, Art. 23 (2)(h). 1097

100. Suriname

The 1987 Constitution sets forth the “creation and improvement of the condition necessary for the protection of nature and for the preservation of the ecological balance” as a social objective of the State. Chapter III, Article 6(c).

101. Switzerland The New Constitution of 1998 establishes the rights and duties of the Confederation

regarding environmental protection. The Constitution sets forth the manner in which to provide for sustainable development, protection of the environment, adequate territorial planning, water and forest use, nature and heritage protection, and the protection of animals. Title 3, Chapter 2, Article 73-80.

102. Taiwan The 1947 Constitution provides that “with respect to the utilization of land, the State

shall, after taking into account the climatic conditions, the nature of the soil and the life and habits of the people, adopt measures to protect the land and to assist in its development.” Chapter XIII, Section 6, Article 169.

1097 The Interim National Constitution of the Republic of the Sudan, adopted July 6, 2005 will last for a six-year interim period, until a permanent constitution is adopted in 2011.

144

103. The Republic of Tajikistan

The 1994 Constitution ensures the right to health care “by measures aimed at protecting the environment.” Chapter 2, Article 38. The Constitution further provides that “the land, the earth, water, airspace, the world of animals and vegetation, and other natural resources are owned by the State, and the State guarantees their effective use in the interests of the people.” Chapter 1, Article 13. The Constitution also makes “the protection of the natural, historical and cultural heritage” the duty of everyone. Chapter 2, Article 44.

104. The United Republic of Tanzania The 1977 Constitution, as amended, directs the State to ensure that “the affairs of the

Government are carried out in such a way as to ensure that the natural resources of the nation are developed, preserved and utilized for the benefit of all citizens in general and also to guard against exploitation of man by man.” Section 2, Article 9(1)(c).

The Constitution provides that “everyone has the responsibility of conserving the natural resources of the Union Republic.” Section 3, Article 27(1). The Constitution also states that “everyone is expected to protect with care properties under care of the State, and of collective nature, to combat all forms of destruction.” Id., Article 27(2).

105. The Kingdom of Thailand

The amended 1991 Constitution directs the State to “promote and encourage public participation in the preservation, maintenance and balanced exploitation of natural resources and biological diversity and in the promotion, maintenance and protection of the quality of the environment in accordance with persistent development principle as well as the control and elimination of pollution affecting public health, sanitary conditions, welfare and quality of life.” Chapter V, Section 79.

The Constitution also provides that “every person shall have a duty to . . . conserve natural resources and the environment.” Chapter IV, Section 69.

106. The Republic of Togo The 1992 Constitution provides that “every person shall have the right to a clean

environment.” Title II, Article 41. The Constitution directs the State to “oversee the protection of the environment.” Id.

107. The Republic of Turkey The 1982 Constitution provides that “everyone has the right to live in a healthy, balanced

environment.” Chapter 3, Section VIII, Part A, Article 56. The Constitution makes it the duty of the State and the citizens to “improve the natural environment, and to prevent environmental pollution.” Id. The Constitution directs the State to “take necessary measures to maintain and develop efficient land cultivation [and] to prevent its loss through erosion.” Id., Section III, Part B, Article 44. The Constitution also specifies that land distribution policies “shall not lead . . . to the depletion of forests and other land and underground resources.” Id.

108. Turkmenistan The 1992 Constitution provides that the State “shall be responsible for preserving . . . the

environment.” Section I, Article 10.

145

109. The Republic of Uganda

The 1995 Constitution provides that the “State shall protect important natural resources, including land, water, wetlands, minerals, oil, fauna and flora on behalf of the people of Uganda.” Chapter XIII. The Constitution directs the State to “promote sustainable development and public awareness of the need to manage land, air, water resources in a balanced and sustainable manner for the present and future generations”; to manage “the utilization of the natural resources of Uganda . . . in such a way as to meet the development and environmental needs of present and future generations of Ugandans”; to “promote and implement energy policies that will ensure that people’s basic needs and those of environmental preservation are met”; to “create and develop parks, reserves and recreation areas and ensure the conservation of natural resources”; to “promote the rational use of natural resources so as to safeguard and protect the bio-diversity of Uganda.” Chapter XXVII. The Constitution also requires the State to ensure that all Ugandans have “access to . . . clean and safe water.” Chapter XIV(b).

110. Ukraine The 1996 Constitution provides that “everyone has the right to an environment that is

safe for life and health.” Chapter II, Article 50. The Constitution makes it the duty of the State “to ensure ecological safety and to maintain the ecological balance on the territory of Ukraine, [and] to overcome the consequences of the Chernobyl catastrophe -- a catastrophe of global scale.” Chapter I, Article 16.

The Constitution also establishes the right “to compensation for damages inflicted through the violation of [the right to a safe environment].” Chapter II, Article 50. The Constitution further provides that “everyone is obliged not to harm nature . . . and to compensate for any damage he or she inflicted.” Id., Article 66. The Constitution also provides that “the use of property shall not . . . aggravate the ecological situation and the natural qualities of land.” Id., Article 41.

The Constitution further provides that “everyone is guaranteed the right of free access to information about the environmental situation, . . . and also the right to disseminate such information.” Id., Article 50. The Constitution forbids anyone to make such information secret. Id.

111. United Arab Emirates The 1971 Provisional Constitution provides that “the natural resources and wealth in each

Emirate shall be considered the public property of that Emirate,” and that “society shall be responsible for the protection and proper exploitation of such natural resources and wealth for the benefit of the national economy.” Chapter 2, Article 23.

112. The Oriental Republic of Uruguay The amended 1966 Constitution declares that “the protection of the environment is of

common interest.” Section II, Chapter II, Article 47. The Constitution provides that “persons should abstain from any act that may cause the serious degradation, destruction, or contamination of the environment.” Id. A 2004 amendment states that “water is a natural resource essential to life,” and that access to piped water and sanitation services are “fundamental human rights.”

146

113. The Republic of Uzbekistan

The 1992 Constitution provides that “the land, its mineral, fauna and flora, as well as other natural resources shall constitute the national wealth, and shall be rationally used and protected by the State.” Part III, Chapter 12, Article 55. The Constitution provides that “the use of any property must not be harmful to the ecological environment.” Id., Article 54. The Constitution also provides that “all citizens shall protect the environment.” Part II, Chapter 11, Article 50.

114. The Republic of Vanuatu The amended 1980 Constitution provides that every person has the duty “to himself and

his descendants and to others . . . to safeguard the natural wealth, natural resources and environment in the interests of the present generation and of future generations.” Chapter 2, Part II, Article 7.

115. The Republic of Venezuela The 1999 Constitution addresses the environmental rights of Venezuelan citizens,

declaring that “[e]very person has a right to individually and collectively enjoy life and a safe, healthy and ecologically balanced environment.” Chapter IX, Article 127. Additionally, “it is a fundamental obligation of the State . . . to guarantee that the population develops in an environment free of contamination, where the air, the water, the coasts, the climate, the ozone layer, the living species are especially protected in conformity with the law.” Id.

116. The Socialist Republic of Vietnam

The 1992 Constitution provides that “state organs, units of armed forces, economic organizations, and individuals have the duty to implement state regulations on the rational use of natural resources and protection of the environment.” Chapter 2, Article 29. The Constitution prohibits “all acts of depleting natural resources and destroying the environment.” Id.

The Constitution requires organizations and individuals “to protect, replenish, and exploit [land allotted to them] in a rational and economical fashion.” Id., Article 18.

117. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) The 1992 Constitution, as amended, provides that “man shall be entitled to a healthy

environment.” Section II, Article 52. The Constitution charges the State “with maintaining a healthy human environment and to this end shall prescribe the conditions and manner of the performance of economic and other activities.” Id. The Constitution also makes it the duty of everyone to “protect the human environment and make use of it in a rational manner.” Id. The Constitution further provides that “man shall be entitled to . . . timely information about [the environment’s] condition.” Id.

118. Zambia The Preamble to the amended 1991 Constitution declares that “we shall . . . conduct the affairs of the state in such manner as to preserve, develop, and utilize its resources for this and future generations.”

147