Kris Genovese

By Kris Genovese

World Bank President Jim Kim has challenged the world with a new campaign, #whatwillittake to end poverty?  But it’s not just what you do, it’s how you do it. Economic development will not improve the lives of people unless it is accompanied by the guarantee of the full enjoyment of their human rights. Projects financed by the World Bank Group, like the Protection of Basic Services Program in Ethiopia or Dinant in Honduras—to name two recent examples, can, and sometimes do, violate human rights, leaving the very people the Bank aims to support even worse off.   As the World Bank undertakes a major review of its environmental and social standards, we’d like you to ask President Kim, #whatwillittake for the World Bank to uphold human rights?

Over the last two decades—mainly in response to controversial projects—the Bank developed a piecemeal set of environmental and social standards, the so-called safeguard policies, whose purpose is to ensure that the Bank “does no harm.” But if you take a look at these policies, you won’t see much mention of human rights.  But now there is a chance to change that.  In October 2012, the World Bank launched the first review of its safeguard policies.  The review is expected to take two years, with multiple opportunities for public input.

The WB financed a problematic land-titling project in Cambodia intended to improve security of tenure. Breaches of Bank policy contributed to Boeung Kak Lake residents being arbitrarily excluded from land titling and, ultimately, forcibly evicted by a private developer. Photo Credit: Sahmakum Teang Tnaut

You wouldn’t think that it would be so controversial for the Bank to make a commitment to uphold human rights.  After all, as a specialized agency of the United Nations, the Bank must act consistently with the UN Charter, which requires “[u]niversal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all…”  Moreover, member States (including in their roles as Executive Directors and borrowers of the Bank) are themselves bound by international human rights treaties to which they are parties.  For you legal wonks out there, you can read our more detailed argument in a letter we sent to President Kim late last year with Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

But you don’t have to take my word for it.  Raquel Rolnik, the UN Special Rapporteur on adequate housing, in a recently published report on her mission to the World Bank, says it short and sweet:

The World Bank should adopt safeguards policies aligned with the international human rights obligations of its member States and clients. Incorporating human rights protections will help member States fulfill their human rights obligations and improve development outcomes by ensuring respect for the rights of those the Bank seeks to benefit.

The remnants of a forced eviction near Boeung Kak Lake, Cambodia. Photo Credit: Sahmakum Teang Tnaut

In the face of the legal, moral, and economic arguments in favor of the Bank adopting human rights requirements, the World Bank hides behind a stale argument that its Articles of Agreement (signed before the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) prevent it from considering human rights issues. Our friend, Dominic Renfrey, from ESCR-Net, does a great job of debunking the argument.

Here’s where you come in.  The first consultation period for the safeguard review ends in one month on April 21st.  We’re asking you to send an email to the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury represents the United States on the World Bank Board) and to the World Bank to tell them that the safeguard policies must uphold human rights.  Specifically, we’re asking the Bank to undertake human rights due diligence, including:

(1) A commitment not to finance activities likely to cause or contribute to human rights abuses;
(2) Human rights impact assessments for all Bank-financed activities; and
(3) Policies that are consistent with human rights standards.

For those of you in the United States, we’ve set up an action here.
For those outside the United States, we’ve set up an action here.

The Chixoy Hydro-Electric Dam in Guatemala received funding from the World Bank. Surrounding communities were forcibly relocated and continue to fight for access to potable water and electricity. Photo Credit: Amanda Kistler

P.S. Stay tuned for more on this next month.  Together with International Accountability Project, we’re cooking up a new initiative to better track the human rights impacts of projects financed by the World Bank and other multilateral development banks!

Tweet

What are the drivers of innovation?  This was the question behind new research CIEL released this week, which clearly illustrates that stronger laws to regulate chemicals are a driver of innovation, and also create a safer marketplace.  Forbes broke the story on Wednesday and the report has received attention from policymakers, industry leaders and environmental health advocates alike.  One example of increased innovation following stronger regulations highlighted in our report is this spike in patents for phthalate alternatives after stronger laws were enacted to protect people, especially children, from these widely used plasticizers:

The response from industry groups that seem to prefer the status quo?  “There is no evidence that stricter chemical laws promote innovation,” states one trade association for chemical manufacturers in a Bloomberg BNA article covering our report.  We’ve heard this one before, right?  The truth is, innovation is not merely about the invention side of the equation, such as discovering new chemicals and new applications for chemicals, but enabling the adoption of better ideas and ensuring progress towards a healthy environment.  In other words, stricter laws increase the supply of and demand for safer alternatives.  This is a crucial aspect of how regulation drives innovation in the chemical industry.

The American Chemistry Council, the trade association for the world’s largest chemicals manufactures, points to a 2012 report for the European Commission (REACH Innovation Report) as proof that regulation stifles innovation.  The report cites responses to a survey of companies that 43 percent of companies covered by a European Union chemical regulation program known as REACH reported that the regulation had a negative impact on innovation, compared with 13 percent that said it had a positive effect.  But there is more to the REACH Innovation Report than what ACC is letting on.

First, nearly half of the companies increased spending on innovation.  Among respondents, 46% reported an overall increase “in expenditure on [research and development (R&D)] and other innovative activities.”  One of the two reasons cited was that “new opportunities had been opened up due to the coming into force of the Regulation.”   In other words, new markets were created, leading to new investment and the potential for new jobs.

Second, companies remain committed to innovation.  The REACH Innovation Report’s authors state “despite having to bear the additional costs of REACH, firms have continued to innovate and are keen to continue to do so.”

Third, some large companies report a shift of interest to new substances following REACH.  These companies are major spenders in the field of R&D and innovation.

Fourth, the European chemicals industry actually grew following the enactment of REACH.  This growth was in spite of the worst economic conditions for Europe in decades in the years after REACH entered into force (2007).

And last, but certainly not least, companies are directing their innovation towards safer alternatives.  According to the REACH Innovation Report “the survey findings suggest some long term shift in the orientation of R&D towards more health-safety-environment (HSE) goals is occurring…related to the stimulus provided by REACH.”

It is apparent that the survey results cited by the ACC stand in clear contradiction with these overwhelmingly positive aspects of the REACH regulation on chemical innovation in the REACH Innovation Report.  With emerging economies like China overtaking traditional leaders the US and Western Europe in bulk chemical manufacturing, the future of the chemical industry lies not in the status quo mix of chemicals, but instead in businesses that respond to consumer demand by investing in the development of safer chemicals. Policymakers should feel emboldened by our findings to enact stronger laws governing hazardous chemicals that will benefit both the economy and the right to a healthy environment.

Kris Genovese

It’s a truism in environmentalism that the farther you are from the impact of your action, the less you know and, for the most part, the less you care.  That’s just what the International Finance Corporation (IFC)—the private sector lending arm of the World Bank—has done through its investments in so-called financial intermediaries (FIs).  A financial intermediary can be a commercial bank, private equity fund, microfinance institution, or insurance company.  So, basically, the IFC lends money to other banks who, in turn, lend it to…

Well, that’s the $20 billion question.  We don’t know whom the FIs lend to or what the impacts of that lending are.  And, as a 60-page audit released this week shows, neither does the IFC. 

I’m not using $20 billion rhetorically here because that’s the amount that the IFC has invested in the financial sector.  That’s nearly half of the IFC’s portfolio.  The audit, conducted by the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman(CAO)—the IFC’s independent accountability mechanism—found that the IFC has no way of knowing whether nearly half of its investments are causing harm to communities and the environment.

The fly in the ointment is that the IFC only focuses on the environmental and social management system that the FI has in place and not on the outcomes of that system.  The key, it turns out, is what you’re managing for and what you’re trying to protect, your profits or communities and the environment.

Here’s a great example from the audit.  Imagine you’re an FI with money from the IFC and your client is a polluting factory.  The pollution presents a clear risk to the surrounding communities and the environment.  It also presents a risk to your bottom line if the factory is fined or shuttered and unable to repay the loan.  What do you do?

If you said, stop the pollution, you’d be wrong.  This is the answer from the CAO’s audit: “An IFC client staff acknowledged that a polluting subclient could be considered an acceptable credit risk because it has provided good collateral or because the loan is short term and the pollution will occur later in the client’s production cycle.”

How does the IFC respond to the shocking finding that it cannot guarantee that nearly half of its portfolio is not causing harm to communities and the environment?

In all seriousness, the IFC’s response to the CAO’s audit is shameful given the significance of the findings and the profound questions it raises about the IFC’s policy model.  The seven-page response (which it took the IFC almost four months to write) asserts, without justification, that the best response to the CAO’s findings is business as usual.  The response ignores, mischaracterizes or takes out of context the CAO’s findings.   Perhaps most egregiously it highlights the CAO’s finding that 90% of IFC’s investments in FIs complies with its policies without acknowledging that the policies themselves are fundamentally and fatally flawed, leaving communities and the environment vulnerable to harm.

We deserve better and, more importantly, the communities affected by IFC’s investments deserve better.  It’s time the IFC stop thinking about what’s best for its clients and start thinking about the people who it’s supposed to be helping lift out of poverty.

Read the key findings and links to the full audit and IFC’s inadequate response here.

View our press release and briefing with our friends at Bretton Woods Project, Oxfam, Pacific Environment, and the ‘Ulu Foundation.

Like many other civil society groups, our assessment of COP18 was that it was plagued by failed ambition and unfulfilled promises – while countries recognized the need for urgent action to respond to climate change, they didn’t take the necessary action to protect the rights of peoples and communities affected by climate impacts. The talks demonstrated a serious lack of political will to take decisive action now, with governments punting critical decisions to the coming years.

And yet, the devastating impacts of climate change felt by peoples and communities around the world have made it all too clear: we need to act now before it’s too late.

At CIEL, we advocate for a human rights-based approach to addressing climate change. We demand that international climate talks fully address the rights and interests of those most vulnerable to, but least responsible for, climate change. Back in 2010, our collective voices were heard when the UNFCCC took a significant first step in recognizing the link between climate change and human rights. For the first time in the climate negotiations, countries agreed that climate change is not only an environmental problem but also a human rights issue for the millions of people and communities experiencing rising sea levels, increasingly severe floods and storms, melting glaciers, groundwater contamination, health impacts, forced relocation and displacement, and other adverse impacts. Despite this recognition and with it the increasing urgency of international action, governments did not take any meaningful steps to protect human rights in the decisions adopted in Doha (known as the Doha Climate Gateway).

Outside the negotiating rooms, however, the effects of climate change on peoples and communities were at the forefront of concerns from activists, community leaders, indigenous groups and many others. Although the formal negotiations did not provide space for these discussions, people found opportunities to share their experiences in dealing with climate change, from communities in the Arctic to small island states, and all points in between. For example, panelists at CIEL’s side event “Advancing Human Rights in the Climate Framework: Where Are We Now and Where Are We Going?” described the impacts of climate change on their communities and their efforts to address the problem, making a powerful argument as to why human rights considerations should be integrated into climate decisions. Their message was quite clear: While our voices may be sidelined in the formal negotiations, we will not be silenced. And our voices are only getting louder.

While the UNFCCC continues to be an important forum for climate action, we cannot sit by while year after year countries pass hollow agreements. Around the world, grassroots movements and advocates are mobilizing for a more sustainable future, one that respects the rights of people who are affected by climate change. These movements will be a powerful force in effecting global change. CIEL will be contributing to these efforts by developing the legal strategies and tools needed to protect (and in some cases compensate for) the lives and livelihoods threatened by climate change.

By Baskut Tuncak

And now for some good news.  Today, France adopted a ban on certain uses of two widely used hormone disrupting chemicals:  Bisphenol A (BPA), and the plasticizer di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, or DEHP for short.  Both BPA and DEHP are primarily used to make plastics—polycarbonate and PVC, respectively.   Millions of tons of each chemical are produced and used per year around the world, eventually finding their way into people (findings for BPA here, and DEHP here).  There are far too many specific uses to list them all here, but the French legislation applies to specific uses that give rise to exposure during critical windows of development for children:  food contact surfaces for BPA (e.g. baby bottles and epoxy linings of can for food and beverages), and DEHP in “tubes” (e.g. IV tubing) in medical facilities for pregnant women or children.

Hormone or, more technically, endocrine disruption is an inherent property of hundreds of chemicals, some of which have been banned due to their downstream effects such as cancer or effects on reproduction, but most of which remain in widespread use.  The U.S. based organization TEDX has identified over 800 chemicals with at least one peer-reviewed study demonstrating endocrine disrupting properties.

BPA is one of the most studied chemicals with endocrine disrupting properties.    BPA is associated with an increased risk for numerous adverse effects, effects that are increasingly occurrence among the people across the globe.  The myriad of adverse effects include: cardiovascular disease, miscarriages, breast and prostate cancer, reproductive dysfunction, metabolic dysfunction and diabetes, and neurological and behavioral disorders.   Some of the disturbing genital deformations associated with phthalate exposure have earned the title of “phthalate syndrome.”  Other potential adverse effects include cancer, obesity, diabetes, and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorders, although human studies have been limited.

The measures adopted in France will:
•    Ban BPA from products that will come into “direct contact” with food for those under the age of three by 1st January 2013;
•    Ban BPA from all other products that will come into “direct contact” with food by 1st January 2015;
•    Require labeling of these products if they contain BPA during the interim period; and
•    Remove DEHP from medical tubing used in pediatric, maternity and neonatal hospitals by 1st July 2015.

Just a few months ago, governments, representatives of chemical manufacturers, international organizations, and civil society issued a consensus statement about “the potential adverse effects of endocrine disruptors on human health and the environment [… and] the need to protect humans, and ecosystems and their constituent parts that are especially vulnerable.”

France’s decision is a step in the right direction, moving forward in a precautionary manner and avoiding further “paralysis by analysis.”   A wealth of information exists about the risks of these and other chemicals of concern; however, the challenge is that the most studied chemicals tend to be the ones that are targeted for additional studies, implying (in the view of some) that existing information is insufficient to take protective measures and delaying action on the full gamut of chemicals of concern that remain on the market.  Resources should be diverted to examining more chemicals for their endocrine disrupting properties, such as two structurally similar substitutes for these chemicals – BPS for BPA and DINCH for DEHP (and another phthalate subject to regulation, DINP), as shown below.  The French legislation calls for an assessment of alternatives for BPA before July 1, 2014.

BPA and it’s substitutes (from top to bottom):  BPA (top), BPF, BPS. (Source: EPA/DfE)

DINCH (substitute for DEHP and DINP)

DINP (phthalate with limited use)

DEHP (phthalate with limited use)

(This article originally appeared Oct. 11, 2012 at blog.saferchemicals.org)

Recently, the global community kicked it up a notch by issuing a simple statement on hormone disrupting chemicals during negotiations on a process intended to achieve the sound management of chemicals globally by 2020 (called “SAICM”).  Despite seeming like an innocuous statement, it lays the groundwork to allow countries from all across the world to take action on hormone disrupting chemicals.  This is a big step forward for the international community working to take action on toxic chemicals.

So what does the statement say? It recognizes and states, “the potential adverse effects of endocrine disruptors on human health and the environment [… and] the need to protect humans, and ecosystems and their constituent parts that are especially vulnerable.”

Well, we’ve known this for decades, right? True, but this seemingly obvious statement is the first global decision in international law on the urgent need for the global community to tackle endocrine disrupting chemicals globally.  It was reached by consensus among 122 governments and nearly 100 inter-governmental and non-governmental organizations, including representatives of chemical manufacturers.  And it stands in stark contrast to the actions of some of these 122 governments.  For example, after throwing in the towel on defending asbestos a few months ago, Canada is now defending the endocrine disruptor bisphenol A (BPA), despite banning BPA in baby bottles in 2010….puzzling, I know.

These hormone-disrupting chemicals, called “endocrine disruptors” (or EDCs), interfere with hormone signaling.  Tests show their presence in everything from personal-care products like cosmetics and sunscreen, to food, to clothing, to children’s products including toys, to building materials, to furniture and more, including people and wildlife.  Chemicals such as BPA and certain phthalates gained international notoriety as widely used EDCs that have been linked to a myriad of adverse effects, including:  reproductive effects, such as infertility and reduced semen quality and quantity; breast, mammary, testicular and prostate cancers; type 2 diabetes, obesity, and heart disease; neurobehavioral outcomes; and thyroid and immune system dysfunction.  But the problem is much bigger than BPA and phthalates: over 800 chemicals have at least one peer-reviewed scientific publication describing their endocrine disrupting properties (see the full list here).

Babies in utero and very young children are extremely vulnerable to both the effects of individual EDCs at low-doses, as well as the mixture of chemicals with endocrine disrupting properties that are regularly found in the umbilical cords and breast milk of pregnant women.  Both the effects of EDCs at low-doses, and the stronger than expected effect of mixtures of these chemicals (i.e. cocktail effect), raise significant questions about the methods used to assess the risks of chemicals, and the continued use of certain chemicals with these properties.

Certain countries have taken initiatives on specific chemicals with endocrine disrupting properties, as well as EDCs in general.  The Danish government is independently pursuing measures to better protect its citizens from products containing four phthalates, because the European Chemical Agency declined to do so.  Today, the French Senate is expected to begin debate on a proposal by the French Assemblée Nationale to ban BPA in all food containers intended for children under three years of age by 2013, and 2015 for the remainder. These national measures come at a time when the European Union is working to improve the ability of several EU laws to protect people and wildlife from EDCs in food, plastics, building materials, and many other sources of daily exposure.

But the efforts of these and other countries to tackle EDCs more effectively stand in stark contrast to places like the United States and Canada. In addition to Canada’s puzzling defense of BPA, the United States remains frozen in time, circa 1970, without a mandatory requirement that all chemicals be tested for their hazards, including potential for endocrine disruption. And, where chemicals are screened in the U.S., the EPA’s methods are deemed inadequate by experts in endocrinology.

So, why is this statement by the global community so important? A recent report by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) highlights the accelerating use, production, release and trade of chemicals in all countries, especially developing countries, and the corresponding likelihood of increased exposure to EDCs globally.  Together with inadequate laws and processes to evaluate the endocrine disrupting properties of chemicals in all countries, future generations are highly vulnerable.

Currently, SAICM is the only global forum with the potential to assist all countries to eliminate the harms of EDCs at a global scale.  The declaration “invites” international organizations to develop a series of activities on EDCs.  Meanwhile, policy-makers in the United States have the opportunity to get ahead of the curve by supporting the Safe Chemicals Act, which proposes significant reforms that seek to eliminate exposure to EDCs.  Eliminating the use of EDCs is not an easy task, but it grows more challenging with each passing day.  We can only hope that the global community develops its strategy to achieve this goal with the urgency that it deserves.

Take action today!

"Life is worth more than gold. No to mining." Sign hung outside entrance to the Tambor mine that community members have successfully blocked through a 24-hour, 7 day a week encampment since March 2012. La Puya, Guatemala

As we arrive in La Puya, an enormous banner spans the breadth of the roadway: “The extraction of our natural resources only means progress for the foreigners. NO TO MINING.” Past the banner at the entrance to the “El Tambor” project, owned by U.S.-based Kappes, Cassidy and Associates, more than 50 people are gathered in a cluster of brightly colored plastic chairs and stand to greet us. More banners and signs of solidarity surround the encampment. “We are all La Puya.” “Water is worth more than gold.” “All mines contaminate.” A thin gauzy sheet has been strung up between trees and hangs over the road to block the worst of the unrelenting sun. On the other side of the road, a makeshift kitchen has been erected between wooden poles holding up a laminate roof. The folks gathered, members of the communities of San José del Golfo and San Pedro Ayampuc, have been braving the elements – natural and otherwise – since the beginning of March, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week in order maintain a peaceful blockade to the only entrance to the mine.

A family stands under a banner showing the proposed mining licenses in their communities. La Puya, Guatemala

After a brief round of introductions, community members begin telling us what brought them here.  The first rumblings of the Tambor project – licensed under the title “Progreso VII Derivado” – was in 2000. In 2007, they reported, a tunnel was dug without permission. Despite repeated requests, the government did not disclose the existence of the mining license until well after it was granted.  It goes without saying that the communities were not included in the EIA process, as required by law. “They treat us like we are mentally ill,” relates one community member. The license for Progreso IIV Derivado covers 20km2 (spanning 7 communities) for 25 years, and Guatemalan President Otto Pérez Molina has publicly declared that Tambor is one of five mining projects of national priority. There are another 14 licenses pending in the area.

"We are all San Jose del Golfo." This peaceful blockade has stopped all entry to the Tambor mine since March 2012. La Puya, Guatemala

San José and San Pedro are located in the Dry Corridor of Guatemala – an area so named because of its limited amount of annual rainfall. Currently, residents receive potable water only a couple hours a day every 4-8 days. “Already we have so little water. What will we do when the mine starts using enormous amounts of water, thousands of liters a day, and dries up our wells?” one young woman asks us rhetorically. “We both live off and make a living selling what produce from the land,” says one gentleman at La Puya. “And okay, maybe the mine brings 70 jobs to our communities like the flyers promise. But what happens when the mine leaves and we no longer have usable land? We will be even poorer and have nowhere to go. This is not development.”

In addition to the issue of water scarcity is the concern about contamination. Their fears are not unfounded; in the communities around the now-closed Goldcorp San Martin mine in Honduras, 18 local streams dried up after mining operations began and evidence of acid mine drainage has gone effectively ignored by both Goldcorp and the Honduran government. “It is not that we are against development,” one community leader emphasizes. “We want development. Of course we do, but we can’t sacrifice our environment for a couple of short-term jobs.”

Banners hung along the road block site. La Puya, Guatemala

The first three articles of the Guatemalan Constitution establish that the purpose of the State is to protect the rights to life, family, physical integrity, peace and the common good. The communities argue that mining violates these rights, which is why they invoke another – the right to non-violent protest. In exercising this right, they have committed to peacefully block the construction of the mine – even if they must do it with their own bodies. “We’ve seen what happened at the Marlin mine. We learned that the only way to effectively stop a project and protect our futures is through civil disobedience. If the law will not protect our rights, we have to do that ourselves,” Tono tells us.

A man shows us one of the flyers distributed in his community. “We believe that the majority of you support us, but a few people oppose our mining operations, and they are very effective at stopping progress and development for your community.”

“Our resistance began on March 2, 2012,” a man in a broad cowboy hat proudly shares. “A woman saw a truck carrying machinery, and frustrated, she pulled her car in front of it so that the truck couldn’t pass. As neighbors saw what she had done, they hurried to join her in the road. That was the beginning of our road block, and we have been there every day and night since then.” The communities have been careful to ensure the roadblock not impede the right of “free locomotion,” as this has been used to justify the often violent eviction of other protest roadblocks.

Meanwhile, the assembled crowd tells us, they are concerned about the increasingly aggressive tactics employed to try and break the blockade. “They want us in prison or they want us dead,” one grandmother states matter-of-factly. “We don’t know if they will come back with flyers or bullets,” another young man contributes.

"For Life, For Water, For Children. No more mining." Guatemala

“They no longer try to talk with us, but instead look for another way to deal with us.” We are told, for example, at 1am on May 8th, about twenty-five trucks carrying machinery arrived at La Puya with the purpose of entering the mine. The trucks were accompanied by some 100 policemen in full anti-riot gear. People reported that the police trucks blocked the local roads, supposedly in an attempt to prevent others from reaching La Puya. However, community members, upon hearing the alert, scrambled through the mountain to arrive, en masse, at the blockade site. After a tense standoff, the company vehicles and their police escort left the 1,500 assembled protesters.

In September, Antonio “Tono” Reyes and Alvaro Sandoval Palencia accepted the “Alice Zachmann Human Rights Defender Award” from the D.C.-based Guatemala Human Rights Commission on behalf of communities of San José del Golfo and San Pedro Ayampuc.

But the repression didn’t end there. Days after the standoff, on June 13th, Yolanda Oquelí, a prominent and well-respected community leader who had received threats in the months previous, was attacked by two armed men on a motorcycle after leaving the blockade site. They fired three times, and one of the bullets lodged in her back, near her spine. She survived the attack, but doctors were unable to remove the bullet. “We aren’t saying it was the company. We aren’t saying it was state or military forces. What we’re saying is that Yolanda was shot because of the conflict that this mining project has provoked in the community,” explains one of the protest leaders. “Because we’re committed to non-violence, we know that any blood that is shed will be our own.”

Nonetheless, in October, the blockade at La Puya entered its seventh month. No machinery has made it past the blockade during that time. In the meantime, in August, Radius Gold, a junior Canadian mining company with majority shares in the Tambor project sold off all its shares to American engineering firm Kappes, Cassidy and Associates – a move that many interpret as a reaction to unfavorable local conditions and a testament to the effectiveness of the mobilization at La Puya. As community leaders continue to receive threats and be the targets of intimidation, they say that the greatest measure of security comes from the watchful eyes of the international community. We invite you to join us as we continue to follow the peaceful protest of the communities of San José del Golfo and San Pedro Ayampuc.

"We are all La Puya!"

Two different parts of the world, one common problem

This week, community leaders from two small villages in very different parts of the world will meet on Bougainville Island in Papua New Guinea (PNG) to discuss a common problem:  their need to relocate as a result of climate change. The communities of Newtok, Alaska, and the Carteret Islands, Papua New Guinea, are among the first in the world to choose relocation as the best means of adapting to the effects of a changing climate and ensuring their cultural survival.

Both communities are from highly vulnerable parts of the world.  Climate change is currently being felt directly by peoples and communities in similarly situated regions, as storms become more violent and unpredictable, sea levels rise, and coastal erosion literally pushes communities into the sea.  As we gather on a remote island in the Pacific, Arctic sea ice will continue to melt – in fact,  sea ice is now at an all-time low, according to data produced by the National Snow and Ice Data Center.  The people in the Carterets, like those in other Small Island Developing States (SIDS) understand there is a direct connection between the sea ice decline and other changes in the Arctic and the adverse impacts they are experiencing.  This relationship – which might otherwise be seen as remote and unconnected – is the foundation of Many Strong Voices, a programme that brings together people and organizations in the Arctic and SIDS to take action on climate change.

Carteret Islands, by Treehugger.org

Many Strong Voices and the Center for International Environmental Law, in collaboration with our partner the Alaska Immigration Justice Project, are working to connect and build the capacity of other communities facing similar relocation challenges.  This week’s dialogue between community leaders from Newtok and the Carterets is only the beginning of what will evolve into a larger initiative.  In a project called Climate Change and Community Based Relocation: Supporting Adaptation, Protecting Human Rights, communities and partners will work to:  document the experiences and lessons learned from these and other relocation processes; identify the needs and challenges communities face in implementing culturally appropriate adaptation strategies, including relocation; and develop guidance that could be used by other communities that have identified the need to relocate.

Despite the devastating effects climate change is already having on coastal and island communities around the world, the stories of Newtok and the Carteret Islands are not about climate “victims” or “refugees” (a wholly inappropriate term for both legal and cultural reasons), but rather about problem solvers.  They are about leadership in the face of extreme challenges and threats to one’s cultural heritage and survival.  They are about overcoming those challenges using local and traditional knowledge and decision-making processes – and a whole lot of creativity.  And they are about the strength and resilience of two communities that are taking the necessary actions to relocate to ensure the cultural resilience and long-term sustainability of their respective communities.  Again, this workshop is only the beginning.  We still have much to learn.

* Alyssa Johl is a Staff Attorney in the Climate Change Program at the Center for International Environmental Law.  John Crump is a Senior Advisor on Climate Change at UNEP/GRID-Arendal.

Baskut Tuncak, Staff Attorney

Next week, negotiators from over 150 countries and other stakeholders will convene in Nairobi, Kenya, to discuss the future of global chemicals management.  These critical negotiations come at decisive juncture for the Strategic Approach to Chemicals Management (SAICM), with only eight years left on its ambitious mandate to ensure sound chemicals management—eight years in which developing regions face rapidly increasing risk of exposure to dangerous chemicals.  A recent report by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), the Global Chemicals Outlook (GCO), highlights the global nature of the chemicals industry and chemical safety.  The GCO highlights three factors responsible for increasing the vulnerability of people living in developing economies to chemical exposure.

First, the report projects that the output of developing regions and countries with economies in transition will overtake developed regions in terms of output towards the middle of this decade.   Following a blistering pace in the last decade, developing regions are projected to have another decade of very rapid expansion.   Projections for growth in chemical production in Asia-Pacific (46%), Africa and the Middle East (40%), and Eastern Europe (35%) dwarf projections for traditional leaders in North America and Western Europe (25%).

Second, the report cites the increasing penetration of chemical intensive products into developing economies.  Consumption of a wide-range of everyday products by consumers and businesses increases the presence of hazardous chemicals in everyday products.  In addition to exposure resulting from domestic consumption and disposal, the trade in waste disproportionally burdens developing regions, which  have become  major destinations for the recycling and disposal of consumer goods from developed regions, such as electronics.

Third, the UNEP Global Chemicals Outlook cites the increased emissions from industrial sectors.  From the upstream sectors of mining and oil/gas extraction to the downstream manufacture of everyday consumer products,  chemical emissions present unique challenges to prevent harm throughout the economic value chain.

These trends highlight the extreme vulnerability of people, wildlife and the environment around the world, especially when considered along with  inadequate chemical safety laws in developed and developing nations alike, and the continued increase in global trade flows..  Chemical management is a global issue that warrants strong international action to create a level playing field for businesses and provide consumers with the safe products they increasingly demand.

Ensuring sound chemicals management is also a sound investment.  The legacy of chemical mismanagement has been very costly for workers and businesses.  The UNEP Cost of Inaction report calculates that the cost of lost work days, medical treatment from pesticide poisonings in just sub-Saharan Africa amounted to $4.4 billion US in 2005.  Overseas Development Assistance to sub-Saharan Africa in 2009 stood at $10.3 billion US – and the report acknowledges that this is an underestimate, as it does not include other adverse effects or other chemicals.

Adopted in 2006, SAICM sets a global goal of achieving the sound management of chemicals worldwide by 2020 and creates a policy framework for achieving that goal.  Unfortunately, financial resources have not been proportionate to the ambition of this goal.  With only eight years remaining to fulfill the current mandate, and limited progress to date, representatives from governments, industry and civil society will gather for the third meeting of SAICM’s governing body, the International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM3), to negotiate SAICM’s role in fostering sound chemicals management globally.  CIEL will be negotiating among governments, private industry and international organization for meaningful action to be taken on the following issues:

• Nanotechnology :  ICCM3 will negotiate whether to add nanotechnology to the Global Plan of Action (GPA) for SAICM implementation, and will also negotiate further action on nanotechnology as an Emerging Policy Issue under SAICM.
• Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs): SAICM stakeholders who met in Serbia last November failed to reach consensus on whether to include EDCs as an Emerging Policy Issue.  At ICCM3, participants will decide this issue and consider other actions that could be taken in the next three years for the sound management of these chemicals.
• Finances:  Financial resources provided for global chemicals management fall far short of what is needed.  SAICM, despite the scope and ambition of the “2020 goal” is the least funded of all major chemicals and waste agreements.  Disagreement over SAICM financing delayed discussions last November; tense, contentious and critical negotiations are expected in Nairobi.
• Future of Emerging Policy Issues:  In 2009, ICCM2 selected four Emerging Policy Issues for increased global attention:  Lead in Paint, Chemicals in Products, Electronic Products Throughout their Life Cycle, and Nanotechnology.  ICCM3 will negotiate future work on these issues.

Our future posts will explain in greater detail what is at stake in each of these topics, and the outcomes of ICCM3.  Check back regularly and follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

Senators Lautenberg and Durbin, pushing to fix a broken chemical law

For the first time in 36 years, the U.S. Congress took a significant step towards fixing the ineffective law that primarily governs the use of toxic chemicals in America’s workplaces, homes, schools, and almost every other facet of our everyday lives.  This is a monumental step, not just for the U.S., but for public health around the globe.

Since the 1970s, the public’s demand for sensible public health precautions has grown.  When the U.S. Congress adopted the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in 1976, over 60,000 chemicals were presumed to be safe for human health and the environment (some 20,000-odd additional chemicals have since been added to TSCA’s inventory of chemicals). This decision was made at a time when, as some of you may recall, one could generally smoke in the workplace, restaurants, airplanes, and other confined public spaces.  Congress gave some power to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to eliminate the manufacture and use of dangerous chemicals under TSCA, but the law’s provisions and their interpretation have handcuffed the Agency.  In fact, the EPA has only been able to ban five existing chemicals since TSCA was enacted using the laws provisions.

Government scientists found furniture with toxic flame retardants burn like those without

Time has shown how wrong and dangerous this presumption of innocence is regarding chemical safety.  A recent series in the Chicago Tribune about toxic chemicals illustrates the unbelievable story of how chemical manufacturers and the cigarette industry are collaborating to infuse furniture and children’s products with toxic flame retardants that do not even accomplish their intended purpose, to slow the pace of fires.

Toxic chemicals, many used in everyday products, are shown to have adverse effects that may include cancer, mutations and abnormalities in the reproductive system, immune disorders, diabetes, obesity, autism, learning disabilities, developmental delay, and others.  Many of the toxic chemicals linked to these adverse effects were grandfathered in under TSCA, but some were not.  In the case of those that were not grandfathered in, i.e. “new” chemicals, EPA must make a prediction about the hazards and risks of these chemicals using available information—but chemical manufacturers are not required to generate this information if none is available.

The evidence of industrial chemicals traveling around the globe through wind, water, animals and trade, coupled with the evidence of these chemicals entering our bodies, circulating in our bloodstream, passing to unborn children in the womb, and imposing lifelong effects, shows that chemical pollution is a global public health issue.  Recognizing that the chemicals policies of the 1970s are grossly inadequate to protect human health and the environment, countries and regions around the world—for example Europe, Canada, Japan, and South Korea—are implementing new policies to require basic information about the hazards of all chemicals, and to place the burden of generating this information on chemicals manufacturers.

Last week, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee took a historic step by voting (10-8) in favor of the 2011 Safe Chemicals Act, paving the way for full Senate vote.  Senator Lautenberg’s proposal not only allows the U.S. to finally break free of ‘70s era chemical policies, but also to ratify a key international agreement—the Stockholm Convention—that restricts or bans the use of 22 very dangerous chemicals, including toxic flame retardants.  Chemicals listed under the Stockholm Convention do not degrade, accumulate in living organisms and are toxic in many ways.  CIEL’s analysis of the 2011 Safe Chemicals Act shows that the proposed legislation would allow the U.S. to ratify the Convention, but more importantly, to be a leader at the global level when it comes to protecting human health and the environment from toxic, dangerous chemicals.

A Senate vote in favor of the 2011 Safe Chemicals Act will send the right message to the U.S. public about Congress’s commitment to protecting the health of workers, women, children, low-income communities, and other populations especially vulnerable to toxic chemicals.  And, the message would be heard beyond the American borders.