Following the opportunity represented by the change of management at the municipal level, we want to express ourselves on key issues for the future of our city. Therefore, we jointly address other Cordoba organizations to the new Mayor of Córdoba, Martín Llaryora, with the aim of making recommendations regarding structural problems that cause serious damage to human rights.

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.

Within the framework of the assumption of the new municipal management, there are unattended situations for years that need an urgent response. Through an open letter, we announce in ten points what these problems are and we make ourselves available to the new cabinet to work in an articulated way.

The ten points are summarized in:

  1. Environmental and health emergency in the Chacras de la Merced neighborhood
  2. Solid Urban Waste
  3. Urban Planning and Development
  4. Gender parity in the cabinet
  5. Trans labor inclusion and quota law
  6. Access to Legal Disruption of Pregnancy in Primary Care Centers
  7. Application of the Micaela law
  8. Access to public information
  9. Healthy school environments
  10. Smoke-free environments and protection of the non-smoker

These are 10 points, which are not exhaustive or exclusive of other problems, but require an urgent response because of the critical situations they represent. We hope that in the next 4 years we can articulate a joint work to continue advancing in the fulfillment of the human rights of the Cordoba community.

Access the full letter

Contact

Carolina Tamagnini, carotamagnini@fundeps.org

The Governor of Mendoza, Rodolfo Suárez, endorsed the reform of the law that protects the water of his province, to end the ban on the use of cyanide and other toxic substances and to remove the need for the Environmental Impact Statement (DIA) For metal mining projects, it must be ratified by the provincial legislative body. This modification implies a setback in the levels of environmental protection.

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.

Law 7722 in force in the province of Mendoza began to take shape in 2005 when, in the face of the interest of mining companies to settle in the Uco Valley, residents began to inform themselves and mobilize in defense of water. The law was approved by the Mendoza legislature in 2007 and ratified by the Mendoza Supreme Court in 2015 before about ten requests for unconstitutionality filed by mining companies. This law does not prohibit mining, but prohibits in the territory of the province of Mendoza, the use of chemical substances such as cyanide, mercury, sulfuric acid, and other similar toxic substances in mining processes, in pursuit of water protection and of agriculture

The draft modification of the law of Governor Rodolfo Suárez, seeks to introduce changes in the essential articles of the law, proposes to eliminate the prohibition of the use of chemical substances –except for mercury- and toxic substances “in metal mining mining processes, prospecting, exploration, exploitation and / or industrialization of metal ores ”; on the other hand, it seeks to remove the need for the Declaration of Environmental Impact (DIA) for metal mining projects to have to be ratified by the provincial legislative body. It aims to promote large-scale metal mining activity in the province of Mendoza.

This modification not only violates the environment as an integral legal good, but also implies the violation of the principles that order the environmental microsystem, in particular the principles of irretroactivity and progressivity established in the General Environment Law (Law 25.675), meaning a setback in the levels of protection already existing in the province. To this must be added the lack of water suffered by the Mendoza area, attentive to the fact that it has a water emergency declaration for more than ten years. The right to water constitutes a basic human right, a fundamental public good for life and health insofar as it is a necessary condition for the enjoyment of other human rights. Thus, in protection of this human right, it is that law 7722 was enacted that today the Mendoza government intends to modify.

It is a primary duty of legislators to listen to citizens who have been mobilizing for years and expressing their rejection of this project during these days. As the Superior Court of Justice of Mendoza will express, the Mendoza decided by law 7722 the productive model they want to develop, it is the right of each society to decide, define and manage the way it adopts to progress. Given these circumstances, we express our concern and rejection of the attempt of the Government of the province to modify the current law.

Author

Maria Laura Carrizo

Contact

Juan Bautista Lopez, juanbautistalopez@fundeps.org

On October 28, the Supreme Court of Justice of Entre Ríos, in the framework of an endless dispute between environmental groups, rural teachers and the Entre Rican government, issued a ruling validating provincial decree 2239/19, which establishes infamous distances of fumigation of the rural schools of said province.

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.

The judicial dispute began when the Ecological Forum of Paraná (FEP) and the Entrepreneurship Association of Entre Ríos (AGMER) promoted an environmental protection action against the Superior Government of the Province of Entre Ríos and the General Council of Education ( in the cause called the Ecologist Forum “1”). Faced with this action, Chamber II, room II of Paraná, issued a ruling admitting amparo and forbidding ground spraying with pesticides within a radius of one thousand meters (1,000 meters) around all rural schools in the Province of Entre Ríos, and the aerial spraying with the same pesticides within a radius of three thousand meters (3,000 meters) around these educational establishments; all this, until it is determined by the specific state areas that identical preventive effects will be obtained for the health of students and staff who attend them with different distances ”. That ruling was then confirmed by the Superior Court of Justice.

Following this judicial record in the month of January of this year, the Entre Rican governor through a decree (No. 4407/2018), established an “exclusion zone” of pesticide application of one hundred (100) meters radius for the case of land applications and five hundred (500) meters for aerial applications, measured from the center of the hull of the rural school. This new decree, which markedly diminished the protective distances around rural schools, was again challenged by the Ecological Forum of Paraná and Agmer through judicial proceedings, requesting the annulment of the decree.

Such request is based on the fact that the State of Entre Ríos was obliged (by the previous sentence) to carry out necessary studies prior to establishing smaller distances, to guarantee the health of the students and the staff of the rural schools. From this action, the Third Chamber of the Second Chamber in Civil and Commercial, on March 28, 2019, resolved to annul the aforementioned decree, because the Province had not carried out the necessary studies, a resolution that it adopted in a similar sense the Superior Court of Justice of Entre Ríos on May 14 of this year.

Even with all these pronouncements against it, the Government of Entre Ríos, by decree No. 2239/19 (dated 08/01/2019), insisted on reducing the distances of application of agrochemicals around rural schools. On this occasion, it established exclusion distances in relation to the hulls of rural schools, 100 meters for land spraying and 500 meters for aerial spraying. Before this new decree, the NGOs Forum Ecologista de Paraná and Agmer again resorted to justice by filing a new environmental protection, but this time against this new decree, arguing that the first of the sentences already analyzed was affected again. Such action obtained a positive pronouncement from the Third Chamber of the Second Chamber of Civil and Commercial Appeals, which ruled in favor of the amparistas, which decided to dictate the decree in question, under similar arguments as those that were held before the first attempt of the entrerriano Government to limit the distances of protection.

Before this last resolution, again contrary to the interests of the Government of Entre Ríos, and of its intention to reduce the distances of application, he appealed the sentence, finally obtaining a sentence favorable to his interests, at the expense of the protection of the health of students, teachers and staff of rural schools. Thus, the Superior Court of Justice of Entre Ríos, on October 28, ended the judicial course, ruling the validity of the last of the decrees (No. 2239/19).

Its main rationale was that the provisions resolved in the first ruling were transitory and therefore did not have the effect of “res judicata” and that said transience ended with the issuance of this decree. However, and almost absurdly, it raises a ridiculous modification: the 100 meters of shelter for ground spraying and the 500 meters for aerial spraying should be measured, not from the center of the school helmet, but from a plant barrier to be implanted. 150 meters away.

This questionable pronouncement, put an end to the judicial question in the Entre Rican justice. The organizations that were part of the fight for health and environmental rights, chose to continue their way before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation. Thus, it will be up to the highest judicial body in Argentina to resolve the conflict in rural Entrerrian schools, ending an issue that will undoubtedly affect all rural classrooms in the country.

Yesterday, in the framework of its last annual session, the Chamber of Deputies of the National Congress sanctioned the law of Minimum Budgets of adaptation and mitigation to Global Climate Change.

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.

The project promoted by Fernando «Pino» Solanas has the character of a minimum budget law, dictated within the framework of the powers that attend the National Congress under Art. 41 of the National Constitution. This implies that it must be applied throughout the territory of the Republic, including by Provincial and Municipal States. The regulation adds to the set of instruments of international law that regulate the phenomenon of climate change, that is, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, all ratified by the Argentine State .

Throughout its six chapters, the law includes, in broad strokes, general provisions, objectives, definitions and principles that guide public instruments and policies aimed at adapting and mitigating the effects of climate change. In turn, in chapter II, he creates the so-called “National Climate Change Cabinet” and an interdisciplinary Advisory Council. In chapter III, it demarcates the guidelines for the formulation of the “National Plan for Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation” and the National Climate Change Information System. Then delineates measures and minimum actions of adaptation and mitigation, providing in its final part institutes linked to citizen participation and the right of access to information.

The brand new regulation establishes in large part of its articulated guidelines and objectives aimed at orienting public policies, while at the same time establishing norms of practical scope. Among some of them we can highlight:

  • Principle of common but differentiated responsibilities: it implies the historical recognition of the unequal responsibility for the damages of global warming that should guide decisions regarding priorities, technology transfer and funds.
  • Transversality of climate change in State policies: it implies that in all public and private actions, the impact of actions, measures, programs and ventures on climate change must be considered.
  • Priority: principle according to which any adaptation and mitigation policy must prioritize the needs of the social groups most vulnerable to climate change.
  • Citizen participation in the formulation of climate change response plans (adaptation and mitigation measures).
  • Development of guidelines for incorporating into the processes of Environmental Impact Assessment considerations related to the impact of climate change.
  • Climate change adaptation measures to be adopted by the National Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Plan, considering the impacts of the phenomenon on human health, in the energy matrix, with sensitivity in the areas most vulnerable to soil desertification processes, of populations located in more vulnerable areas, tending towards food sovereignty; contemplating the impact on glacier and periglacial environments and seeking the management of water heritage; at the same time it will tend to the planning of the territorial planning contemplating an environmentally sustainable land use.
  • Mitigation measures to be adopted by the National Plan for Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation, which promote the reduction and elimination of emissions, the use of renewable energies, energy self-sufficiency, the distributed generation of electrical energy, appropriate mitigation practices in the sector agro-livestock; the revision of urban planning and building standards.
  • Promotion by each jurisdiction (provincial and municipal) of the processes of participation among stakeholders, in the definition of adaptation and mitigation actions.
  • Access to environmental information on climate change.
  • Interjurisdictional coordination through the Federal Environment Council for the implementation of actions and measures for the application of the law.

Undoubtedly, the law constitutes, in some way, fulfilling the obligation that weighs on the States to provide a regulatory legal framework to the phenomenon of climate change. However, as it was argued, the great majority of the articles have an orientation dye, formulated around political guidelines. Contrary to what is established in the vast majority of minimum budget laws in force in our country, the newly sanctioned legislation does not have a substantial regulation regarding the rights of communities linked to effective ways to demand the prevention, mitigation, repair of damages caused due to the effects of climate change, as well as regulations related to access to «climate» justice, procedural rights in particular, updating of environmental management instruments, all circumstances that could have been contemplated in order to respond to those human rights that today are affected by the effects of climate change. A laudable advance, but certainly not enough.

Author

Juan Bautista Lopez. juanbautistalopez@fundeps.org.ar

After observing the presence of machines fumigating in fields near their homes, residents of the Tajamar Reserve District filed a complaint with the Judicial Unit of Alta Gracia.

2Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.

On the occasion of repeated fumigation episodes at a short distance from their homes, residents of the Tajamar Reserve District of the city of Alta Gracia, contacted Fundeps through our website “Agrochemical Emergency”. Concerned about the situation, after accessing information about the routes of action, they decided to file a criminal complaint with the Judicial Unit of the same city.

Thus, on October 28 they denounced that in repeated opportunities, at night hours and at a very short distance from homes, they were able to observe the presence of machines performing fumigation work. They also said that these fields are located a few hundred meters from their homes and that they have corn plantations. According to the complainants, there would be 60 families that would be affected by the spraying.

Based on the aforementioned complaint, a summary action was initiated, which was originally labeled as “Crime against Public Security.” The facts were communicated to the Prosecutor of Instruction of multiple competence of the city of Alta Gracia, in order to initiate the corresponding criminal investigation.

It should be remembered that this type of behavior – illegal spraying – is subject to sanction from Art. 55 and 56 of the hazardous waste law 24.051, which represses those using hazardous waste – please agrochemicals – poison, adulterate with imprisonment or contaminate in a manner dangerous to health, soil, water, atmosphere or the environment in general.

Author

Augusto Lopez

Contact

Juan Bautista Lopez, juanbautistalopez@fundeps.org

Together with other non-governmental organizations, we participate in a thematic hearing before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. At this hearing we present a report on the impact of climate change on the enjoyment and enjoyment of human rights.

Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic.

In the framework of the 173 session of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) held in Washington DC, we participated in the hearing on climate change and the rights of women, children, indigenous and rural communities. Together with other Latin American non-governmental organizations – advocated for the protection of human rights and the environment – we present a report on climate change and its impact on human rights.

The report was prepared collaboratively together with Fundación Pachamama, Dejusticia, AIDA, IDL, Engajamundo, Earthrights International, Honduran Alliance on Climate Change, FIMA, CELS, DPLF, Conectas, FARN, CEMDA and the Climate Route. It was presented to the IACHR, it mainly addresses the differentiated impact caused by climate change on the populations and communities of Latin America. The following topics were addressed in this:

  1. Impacts of Climate Change on Rights
  2. Response Measures to Address Climate Change and its Implications with Human Rights
  3. Differentiated Impacts of Climate Change on the Rights of Vulnerable Groups
  4. Obligations of States and Responsibilities of Non-State Actors in the Context of Climate Change and Human Rights

It is important to point out that the tool for participation in thematic hearings of the IACHR allows the immediacy on the part of the regional body in those problems that afflict local communities, while providing tools to then urge the member states of the Organization of American States, to the fulfillment of respectful Human Rights policies.

Regarding the pressing problem of climate change, it is important that the IACHR recognizes the impacts that this phenomenon causes throughout Latin America, and accordingly demands that States deepen their prevention, regulation, mitigation and adaptation policies in pursuit of guarantee human and social development in healthy and balanced environmental conditions.

Authors

Valentina Castillo Barnetche

Aranza Ruiz

Contact

Juan Bautista Lopez, juanbautistalopez@fundeps.org

The federal judge of San Nicolás, Province of Buenos Aires, Carlos Villafuerte Ruzo, ordered “a restrictive and exclusion limit” of 1095 meters for ground spraying and 3000 meters for aerial spraying with pesticides, herbicides, insecticides, phytosanitary products, fungicides, and any other package of agrochemicals in the city of Pergamino.

Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic.

The head of Federal Court No. 2 that investigates pollution with agrochemicals in the city of Pergamino, province of Buenos Aires, extended a precautionary measure that had been issued in the same case, ordering on this new occasion to suspend aerial spraying at a distance 3,000 meters from the urban area and 1,095 meters for land applications. The prohibition includes the use of pesticides, herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, and any other package of agrochemicals, such as glyphosate and its derived metabolites, atrazine, triticonazole, metolachlor, acetochlor, chlorpyrifos, imidacloprid, disetil, 2.4D; and commercial formulations such as ROUNDUP FULL II, ROUNDUP MAX II, ROUNDUP ULTRAMAX.

On this occasion, the judge considered that the reasons for ordering the original resolution had not changed, where a prohibition of 600 meters would be established provisionally, until studies on the health of the population were carried out. In this sense, new genotocixity studies were incorporated into the cause where the “presence of genetic damage in the organisms of people” was confirmed. The resolution said the studies found “glyphosate in the blood and urine of people, with an increase in blood markers of chromosomal damage.”

The cause was opened by the impulse of neighboring Florencia Morales and Sabrina del Valle Ortíz, who detected the poisonings in the Villa Alicia neighborhood, both referents of “Mothers of Fumigated Neighborhoods”. Throughout the cause, various tests were incorporated that demonstrated the environmental risk involved in the use of these products and their impact on human health. Given all this, the federal judge understood that these evidences, in principle, were sufficient to have as configured a danger of damage to health and the environment. Under the guideline of the precautionary principle, he argued that “in the absence of scientific certainty regarding the safety of the products discharged for the population of Pergamino justifies the extension of the measure already arranged and in the intended distances, since it is not possible to avoid that it is an extremely delicate and sensitive situation, the health of children and adults in that region being at stake”.

The Judge also assessed the results and evaluations carried out by the GeMA Research Group – Genetics and Environmental Mutagenesis – of the Department of Natural Sciences of the National University of Río Cuarto, in charge of Dr. Delia Aiassa. In one of their works, the researchers evaluated the level of damage in the genetic material of children in the city of Marcos Juárez, province of Córdoba. To this end, they studied three groups of children residing at different distances from the spray zone: less than 500 meters, between 500 and 1,095 meters, and more than 3,000. No differences in genetic damage were found between groups of children residing within 500 meters and between 500 and 1,095 meters. However, the genetic damage of both groups was significantly greater than that of resident children at distances greater than 3,000 meters, thus suggesting that the 500 meters of shelter indicated in art. 59 of Law 9,164 of the province of Córdoba (Law of Agrochemicals) are not enough in localities that are surrounded by crops where agrochemicals are sprayed.

 

Water in Pergamino

In April 2019, the same judge Carlos Villafuerte Ruzo ordered to suspend the application of agrochemicals in four fields surrounding three neighborhoods of Pergamino, determining a prohibition distance of 600 meters from the houses. There, the neighbors had reported serious health problems in children and adults. The judge’s decision was based on a study by the Experimental Agricultural Station (EEA) of the National Institute of Agricultural Technology (INTA) Balcarce, which resulted in the presence of pesticides in the water. From the Municipality they requested that a new analysis be made to the Water Authority of the province of Buenos Aires which, unlike INTA, concluded that the water was suitable for human consumption.

Although the presence of agrochemicals was found, it was detailed that they were below the parameters considered hazardous to health. Faced with these two reports, Judge Villafuerte requested a new study from the Toxicology team of the Supreme Court of the Nation, which confirmed that Pergamino water is contaminated with 18 types of agrochemicals. This result coincides with that shown by INTA Balcarce. This new report clarifies that the examination of the specialists of the Court was carried out based on liquid evidence and not on the reports already prepared that are part of the criminal case.

The three neighborhoods where water pollution was reported are: Villa Alicia, Luar Kayard and La Guarida. Villafuerte Ruzo in his ruling had urged the Municipality to immediately guarantee the provision of drinking water in these neighborhoods.

 

Cause impact

The Pergamino case and its subsequent ruling at the hands of the Federal Justice, generated that in the province the courts also handed down similar sentences. Such is the case at the town of Exaltación De La Cruz, where a recent ruling by Buenos Aires justice ordered the banning of sprays less than a thousand meters from the ground.

 

More information

 

Authors

María Laura Carrizo

Lorena Sciarini

 

Contact

Juan Bautista López, juanbautistalopez@fundeps.org

On August 7, a parallel event was held within the framework of the Pre-COP Córdoba 2019, where we participated in the organization jointly with Fundación Tierravida, Córdoba Young Agency Ministry of Environment and Climate Change. The Side Event convened various sectors of civil society, NGOs, universities, native peoples, entrepreneurs and activists, involved in the theme of climate change.

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.

Given the cross-cutting nature of environmental management, which is why environmental problems must be considered and assumed comprehensively and cross-sectorally, a logic of horizontal, multisectoral and interdisciplinary participation was sustained throughout the day.

In the morning the event began with the dissertation of specialists in climate change and then in the afternoon, through various work tables, the participants discussed, discussed and contributed on an equal and transparent footing to write a Roadmap . The discussion, in addition to being linked to the PreCOP issues, was framed in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

In addition to the aforementioned, various projects and actions of NGOs against climate change were presented under the Pecha Kucha format, topics such as renewable energy, differentiated waste collection, community empowerment on climate change were discussed.

About the Roadmap

The Road Map was the central and final objective of the event, in which representatives of the Cordoba civil society left the actions to be followed. Specifically, it focused on what elements are necessary to achieve governance that guarantees and promotes the effective participation of all sectors in decision-making and in the allocation of resources for projects, plans and programs related to climate change.

The aforementioned document was presented, in its preliminary version, before the official PreCOP authorities and at COP 25 to be carried out in December 2019 in Chile. During the month of September, work will continue among the participating organizations of the Side Event to continue developing their content.

The Climate Summit (COP) this year will be held in Chile and is a great opportunity to reach our representatives the various voices embodied in a document that show what are the necessary actions to deal with climate change. The summit is attended by representatives from almost every country in the world, scientists, specialists and NGOs where they intend to set criteria for compliance with the Paris Agreement and improve gas reduction goals.

Authors 

Carolina Tamagnini

Ananda Lavayén

María Laura Carrizo

Contact

Juan Bautista López, juanbautistalopez@fundeps.org 

We request the participation in the character of friend of the court (amicus curiae) in the case that must be resolved on the environmental problem that affects the neighbors of the production plant of the company “Porta Hnos.”

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.

We submit a request to federal court No. 3 by Judge Miguel Vaca Narvaja, admission and participation as amicus curiae (friend of the court) in the cars “CRUZ, SILVIA MARCELA AND OTHER C / MINISTRY OF ENERGY AND MINING OF THE NATION S / ENVIRONMENTAL AMPARO (FCB 021076/2016)”, which are processed before said court, on the occasion of the environmental protection initiated by the neighbors of the Porta Hnos plant, against the polluting activity present there.

Continuing with the commitment around the problem that afflicts the neighbors of that of the Porta plant, on this occasion, through the Amicus Curiae Institute, we intend to provide the intervening Court with foundations of fact and law that we consider relevant for the purposes of an adequate weighting in relation to the interests at stake and a resolution of the problem respectful of the fundamental rights affected.

It should be remembered that the conflict to be resolved in the federal justice of this province, involves more than 25 neighbors of B ° San Antonio and members of the Citizen Assembly “UNITED NEIGHBORS IN DEFENSE OF A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT – VUDAS” who initiated an action Amparo Ambiental group against the Ministry of Energy and Mining of the Nation (Secretariat of Hydrocarbons Resources) requesting the closure and final closure of the bioethanol plant of PORTA HNOS. S.A since the operation of this irreparably affects the health of the neighbors and the environment.

We consider participation in this case to be of fundamental importance since in the underlying conflict, fundamental human rights such as life, health and the environment are compromised. For this reason, the resolution must consider such extremes and, in this case, provide a judicial response that may mean an important judicial precedent in environmental matters.

Author

Ananda Lavayen

Contact

Juan Bautista Lopez, juanbautistalopez@fundeps.org

Given the facts of public knowledge related to the report of the Environmental Police Directorate of the province of Córdoba regarding the malfunction of the Edar Bajo Grande plant, we insist on the claim presented in May of this year, by Fundeps with Las Omas and neighbors of the neighborhoods Chacras de la Merced, Villa La Merced, Ciudad Mi Esperanza and Parque 9 de Julio against the mayor Ramón Mestre, requesting a hearing this time in order to seek alternatives to solve the problem.

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.

On May of the current year, we presented together with neighbors from different neighborhoods immersed in the problem of Chacras de la Merced, an administrative complaint. In this, we demanded that the Municipality of Córdoba Municipality comply with the mitigation plan prepared by the municipality itself to temper and correct the problems that afflict said area of ​​our city due to environmental degradation mainly from the Purification Station of Wastewater of Bajo Grande (hereinafter Edar).

Due to the lack of responses by the Intendancy, and to the facts of public knowledge about a report by the Environmental Police Directorate of the Province that again highlights the malfunction of the Edar plant, and the consequent contamination environmental that this causes, is that we insist on that claim. In turn, considering the next change of government and the urgency required to address the problem, we request a hearing from the Administration in order to bring perspectives, evidence and alternatives to address the problem tending to achieve respect for rights. fundamental humans who are currently affected.

Likewise, in the insistence claim we once again realized the serious situation that affects Chacras de la Merced, mainly related to health conditions in the communities and socio-environmental conditions that make it difficult to develop their life plan. Situation that is recognized by the Municipality of Córdoba at least since 2014 when it declared for the first time the environmental and sanitary emergency of the EDAR plant and the areas located downstream, status that remains to this day. In the same way, we reiterate the request to make public the information about the tasks carried out by the Municipality in relation to the Mitigation Plan, which has not been provided before repeated requests for access to public information submitted by Fundeps.

The systematic and continuous aggravation of the living conditions of the population of Chacras de la Merced linked to environmental degradation caused by the Edar, and the inaction of the Municipality, who, with its omission, consolidates day-to-day human rights involvement, is that again we demand a definitive solution to the problem of those who suffer from forgetting and environmental discrimination in the city of Córdoba.

On the other hand, and in relation to the problem, we submit a request for access to public information before the Environmental Police Directorate in order to request the Report made by said agency in which it reports Edar’s malfunction. Said report was presented to the Municipality of Córdoba as it transcended, but was not publicized, even before the relevance and public interest that it has while the samples collected by the Environmental Police of the liquids that enter and are discharged without treatment to the River are analyzed. Drought and that, as it transpired, show the serious environmental damage caused by Edar.

More information

Contact

Juan Bautista López, juanbautistalopez@fundeps.org

After a long judicial process, a group of residents of the town of Gualeguaychu (Entre Ríos) managed to get the Supreme Court of Justice to rule in favor of their claim in an important precedent that recognized and applied novel principles of environmental law.

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.

Such course of action began with an action for environmental protection filed by a group of Gualeguaychu residents against a real estate project located near the river of the same name, demanding the cessation of works and the environmental recomposition. In the first instance, the action was accepted, although afterwards the Superior Court of Justice Entre Ríos (hereinafter STJER) annulled the judgment. Before this last pronouncement, the amparistas presented an extraordinary federal appeal, which, although it was rejected by the STJER, was admitted by the Supreme Court of Justice (hereinafter “The Court”), revoking in its resolution that resolved by the high provincial court.

Although the highest court in Argentina only overturned the ruling of his interlocutor paring the proceedings to the court of origin, the considerations for arriving at such a decision reaffirmed certain existing rules and principles in environmental law (procedural and substantial), at the same time that crystallized novel legal principles in the matter. In effect, the Court once again stressed the integral systemic nature of the watersheds and the importance of the protection of the wetlands (affected in this case) as integral and interdependent parts of the water system, citing as a normative instrument the Ramsar Convention (Relative Convention to Wetlands of International Importance, especially as Waterfowl Habitat).

Likewise, the Court assessed the application of the precautionary principle, and also introduced the novel application of the principles in dubio pro natura and in dubio pro aqua.

Regarding the principle in dubio pro natura, this establishes (in the words of the Court) that: “In case of doubt, all proceedings before courts, administrative bodies and other decision-makers must be resolved in such a way as to favor protection and conservation. of the environment, giving preference to less harmful alternatives. Actions will not be taken when their potential adverse effects are disproportionate or excessive in relation to the benefits derived from them.”

Regarding the principle in dubio pro aqua, he argued that: “In case of uncertainty, environmental and water disputes should be resolved in the courts, and application laws interpreted in the most favorable way to the protection and preservation of the resources of water and related ecosystems.”

In short, the Court revoked the decision of the STJER since it directly affected access to environmental justice (Article 32 of Law 25.675) and the principles in dubio pro natura and pro aqua, in the defined terms. Undoubtedly, the jurisprudential recognition of the highest judicial body means the incorporation of both guidelines to Argentine environmental law. They are welcome.

More information

Author

Juan Bautista Lopez, juanbautistalopez@fundeps.org

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.

The proposals of the mining company and the province of San Juan, focused on questioning: a) the legislative procedure for the enactment of Law 26,639 (of Glaciers); b) The unconstitutionality of the aforementioned regulations for advancing on regulatory competences specific to the Province as holder of the original domain of natural resources. The company Barrick and the province of San Juan converged on this last point arguing that the law in question, hypothetically, posed an affront to the possibilities of exploitation by the mining company and management of natural resources by the province.

In view of this situation, the Court analyzed whether the necessary requirements were met for the organ to enter into the analysis of the parties’ claims, that is, if there was a “judicial case” (subject that may be subject to a process). The conclusion reached was that there was no sufficient accredited legal interest, or a so-called “act in the making” (administrative act necessary to consider the existence of a judicial case) that endangers the rights of the parties. He also considered that the lack of completion of the Glacier Inventory (ordered to the Executive Branch by the glaciers law), necessarily implied the inexistence of the “act in the making”, since this inventory was a basic budget for the operation of the attacked law by the parties.

As a consequence of the inexistence of the justiciable case, the Supreme Court held that as regards the conflict between the provincial and national jurisdiction alleged by the province of San Juan, the judicial power should not intervene, while the environmental policy issues should be resolved by the federal dialogue before the intervention of the judges.

However, even though it was not necessary according to the conclusions regarding the inexistence of a justiciable “case”, the ministers of the Court held that the process by which the Glaciers Law had been sanctioned had been valid from the point of view constitutional, according to the background and regulations of the Chamber of Senators.

On the other hand, in a convincing “environmental” message, the Court expressed its opinion regarding the validity of the Glaciers Law, in the face of the arguments that raised its unconstitutionality, thus outlining its position regarding a future “judicial case”. Among some of the arguments offered by the high judicial body, the following can be highlighted:

  1. The clear rule that when there are rights of collective incidence pertaining to the protection of the environment – in the case of the Law of Glaciers the strategic resource Water – the hypothetical controversy can not be treated as the mere collision of subjective rights (individual lease). The characterization of the environment as a “collective good” changes the focus of the problem, which must not only address the claims of the parties.
  2. The interests that exceed the bilateral conflict must be considered (in the case between the Province of San Juan and the Barrick mining company against the provisions of the Glaciers Law), in order to have a polycentric vision, since there are numerous rights affected.
  3. The solution can not only be limited to solving the past, but, and fundamentally, to promoting a solution focused on future sustainability, for which a decision is required that foresees the consequences of such a decision.
  4. The environment is not according to the National Constitution, an object intended for the exclusive service of man, appropriable according to their needs.
  5. Access to drinking water is a right that must be regulated under an eco-centric, or systemic legal paradigm, which not only takes into account private or state interests, but also those of the same system, according to the General Environmental Law ( 25,675).
  6. This vision regarding access to drinking water is relevant as the regulation that protects the glaciers, has as an objective to preserve them as strategic reserves of water resources for human consumption; for agriculture; for the recharge of water basins; for the protection of biodiversity.
  7. Based on these objectives, the Glaciers Law protects this resource from the harmful effects that certain extractive processes (mining) can have on the preservation and conservation of glaciers. Such protection is part of the provisions of the Paris Agreement on global warming.
  8. Faced with the provisions of the Law of Glaciers that aim to protect rights of collective incidence, judges must consider that natural and legal persons can certainly be holders of subjective property rights. More must also consider that this individual right must be harmonized with the rights of collective incidence to ensure that the exercise of lawful industry is sustainable.
  9. The Court concludes that the constitutionality trial of a possible injurious act derived from the glacier law -if a judicial cause is proven- should be analyzed in the context of the weighing of the various rights and property involved.
  10. Likewise, the Court warns that such weighting will not be possible until the National Executive Power complies with the obligation to draw up the national inventory of glaciers.

In short, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, rejected the action of Barrick Gold and the province of San Juan on the grounds that there was no “judicial case” and did not resolve the substantive claim on the constitutionality or otherwise of the Law of Glaciers. However, in a blunt message, he left his position before an eventual proposal of similar characteristics: Glaciers law, protects a supraindividual environmental good, which, faced with a conflict against an individual right, must be weighted based on criteria of sustainability , Intergenerationality, biodiversity, under an eco-centric or systemic paradigm (not anthropocentric). Between the lines, the Glaciers Law … is constitutional.

  • More information:

Read the full ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice

  • Author:

Juan Bautista Lopez, juanbautistalopez@fundeps.org