Category Archives: Environmental justice

Environmental justice | February 11, 2013

Appeal to stop barbaric police action

Friends of the Earth Sri Lanka

February 7, 2012

Open letter to Shri Naveen Patnaik, Honourable Chief Minister, Odisha, India

Copied to:

Mr. Manmohan Singh, Honourable Prime Minister, India

Ms. Sonia Gandhi, Honourable President, Indian National Congress

Honourable Chairperson, Human Rights Commission, India

Shri. V. Kishore Chandra Deo, Honourable Minister of Tribal Affairs, India

Smt. Jayanthi Natarajan, Honourable Minister of Environment and Forests, India

Superintendent of Police, Jagatsingpur, Odisha, India

Appeal to stop barbaric police action

Dear Sir

We are concerned at the barbaric actions of your police and paramilitary forces in the proposed POSCO project area in Jagatsingpur district. We have come to know that men paramilitary forces are mercilessly beating up even women villagers and children. Several women are badly injured. The police have also started smashing betel vines and cutting the trees on village lands forcefully.

This brutal action to forcefully evict the villagers and give the land on a platter to South Korean TNC POSCO is clearly a violation of the laws of India and international legal standards. So far we know the National Green Tribunal of India has already suspended the environment clearance to the proposed POSCO project.

We appeal to you to urgently stop the police brutality, withdraw the police force, initiate an inquiry into the human rights violations by the police and put an end to this illegal land grabbing by the State for a private foreign company.

In Solidarity with the struggling villagers,

Signed

Friends of the Earth International (with 74 member groups)
S.M. Mohamed Idris, Sahabat Alam Malaysia/Friends of the Earth Malaysia
Hemantha Withanage, Centre for Environmental Justice (CEJ) / FoE Sri Lanka
Issac Rojas, COECOCEIBA — Friends of the Earth Costa Rica
Hyunji Kim, KFEM / Friends of the Earth South Korea
Olivier Berland, Les Amis de la Terre-France
Prakash Mani Sharma, Pro Public / Friends of the Earth Nepal
Anabela Lemos, Justiça Ambiental / Friends of the Earth Mozambique
Hans Berkhuizen, Milieudefensie / Friends of the Earth Netherlands
Lucia Otriz, Amigos da Terra Brazil
Elías Díaz Peña, SOBREVIVENCIA / Friends of the Earth Paraguay
Ricardo Navarro, CESTA / Friends of the Earth El Salvador
John Whyte, Friends of the Earth New Zealand
Dr. Richard Dixon, Friends of the Earth Scotland
Tatiana Roa Avendano, CENSAT / Friends of the Earth Colombia
Virgilio da Silva Guterre, Haburas Foundation / Friends of the Earth Timor-Leste
Grace Villanueva, Legal Rights Center / Ksama sa Kalikasan / FOE Philippines
Beatrice Olivastri, Friends of the Earth Canada
Junichi Mishiba, Friends of the Earth Japan
Abetnego Tarigan, WALHI — Friends of the Earth Indonesia
Elaine Gilligan, Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland
Darius Assem, Les Amis de la Terre Togo / Friends of the Earth Togo
Karin Nansen, REDES / Friends of the Earth Uruguay
Karen Orenstein, Friends of the Earth United States
Bente Andersen, NOAH — Friends of the Earth Denmark

2012 Media releases | Climate and energy | Environmental justice | January 30, 2013

Dutch Court ruling against Shell a partial victory

Friends of the Earth International

January 30, 2013

THE HAGUE, THE NETHERLANDS, January 30, 2013 — Today a Dutch court ruled that Shell Nigeria is responsible for polluting farmlands in a landmark case brought by four Nigerian farmers and Friends of the Earth Netherlands. The court said Shell’s subsidiary is accountable for damage caused by oil spills at Ikot Ada Udo, Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria. Though this is an important victory, Friends of the Earth International is disappointed that the court did not return a similar verdict in the cases brought by the plaintiffs from Goi and Oruma communities. The plaintiffs and Friends of the Earth Netherlands plan to appeal this ruling, as well as the principle point of the liability of the Royal Dutch Shell (RDS) parent company.

“This win for the farmers of Ikot Ada Udo has set a precedent as it will be an important step that multinationals can more easily be made answerable for the damage they do in developing countries. We anticipate other communities will now demand that Shell pay for the assault on their environment,” says Friends of the Earth Nigeria’s Executive Director, Nnimmo Bassey, who has played a pivotal role in bringing to light the havoc wreaked by Shell in the Niger delta.

Likewise, Friends of Earth Netherlands campaigner Geert Ritsema comments: “This verdict is great news for the people in lkot Ada Udo who started this case together with Friends of the Earth Netherlands. But the verdict also offers hope to other victims of environmental pollution caused by multinationals. At the same time, the verdict is a bitter disappointment for the people in the villages of Oruma and Goi — where the court did not hold Shell liable for the damage. Fortunately, this can still change in an appeal,” he added.

The four Nigerian plaintiffs have been demanding that Shell cleans up the oil pollution in their communities, compensates those affected and prevent further leaks from occurring. The communities of the Niger Delta depend primarily on the environment for their livelihoods, including farming and fishing. Oil industry operations in the Niger Delta have damaged or destroyed local food and water supplies, biodiversity and fishing ponds and crops that locals had used to earn money. Today’s ruling follows a hearing in October 2012, which was a landmark in itself.

The court decided not to hold the parent company liable for damage done in Nigeria. Friends of the Earth Netherlands was denied access to evidence proving Shell’s international parent company based in the Netherlands (RDS) determines the daily affairs of Shell’s Nigerian subsidiary (SPDC). RDS owns 100% of SPDC shares. SPDC’s profits (estimated at €1.8 billion annually) are deposited in the Netherlands. Nevertheless, under existing laws, RDS cannot be held liable for the damage done on the basis of these facts alone. Friends of the Earth Netherlands must prove that governance actually comes from the headquarters in the Netherlands. Because Shell has not been ordered by the court to allow access to internal company documents which would demonstrate their governance of SPDC, it has been very difficult to prove this. “Apparently our justice system allows a company to pocket the profits from a foreign subsidiary without being held liable for the damage it causes while producing those profits,” said Geert Ritsema of Friends of the Earth Netherlands.

The court also ruled that Shell has convincingly proven that sabotage was involved in two of the three villages. The plaintiffs find it incomprehensible that the court has allowed itself to be convinced by a number of blurry photos and poor quality video images submitted by Shell.

With the plaintiffs, Friends of the Earth International remains convinced that poor maintenance is the cause of the spills. Even where sabotage is involved, Friends of the Earth International believes that Shell bears responsibility and is liable for the damage.

The widespread devastation faced by communities in the Niger Delta as a result of oil spills by companies like Shell also demonstrates the urgent need for a global transition away from corporate-controlled dirty energy like oil, coal, gas, industrial agrofuels and mega-dams, and the development and roll-out of clean energy alternatives which are appropriate to the needs of communities and under their democratic control. This transition is urgently needed if we are to stop catastrophic climate change and avoid climate tipping points while at the same time addressing the inequalities that prevent millions of people from accessing clean, affordable fuel to meet their basic energy needs.

For more information

More information on the background of the case can be found on the
website of Friends of the Earth Netherlands: www.milieudefensie.nl.

For questions about the court case, please contact the Friends of the Earth Netherlands press office, +31(0)20-5507333.

Blogs | Environmental justice | January 21, 2013

Help save Ontario’s endangered species

Ontario’s Endangered Species Act is a key law that protects the province’s endangered wildlife and habitat. The law is one of the best in the country. When corporations plan a project that affects species at risk, they must obtain a permit. The industry or developer must come up with a plan that protects endangered species. The company must comply with the terms of the permit, and the environmental impacts are monitored.

The Endangered Species Act is now endangered by recent proposals by the province. Ontario’s Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) has proposed granting blanket exemptions for industrial activities. The exemptions would apply to mining, logging, quarries, suburban housing developments, hydroelectric dams and other types of projects.

What will be the long-term impact on Ontario’s endangered species?

The Ministry’s proposals would allow for broad exemptions for many industrial activities. If the proposals are approved, the province will not monitor the impacts of many industrial projects. With “voluntary” measures, we could lose endangered species.

Are you disturbed by MNR’s proposals? We certainly are. We hope you will take a moment to speak out for Ontario’s endangered species. Make sure your opinion is counted. We don’t want exemptions for industries and developers. We want Ontario to protect endangered wildlife and plants. Don’t delay — we have less than a week to comment.

To register your comments, visit Ontario’s Environmental Registry:

http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/displaynoticecontent.do?noticeId=MTE4MDY5&statusId=MTc2NzEx&language=en

To make sure your comments are counted, be sure to include the EBR Registry Number 011-7696. The comment period has been extended to January 25, 2013.

Beatrice Olivastri

Extractive industries | Radio Mundo Real | January 19, 2013

Clear consequences

Beginning of Mesoamerican event against mining in Oaxaca, Mexico; interview with Kendy Hernández

Radio Mundo Real

January 17, 2013

“Yes to Capulálpam, no to the mine,” said Kendy Hernández, referring to the meeting to take place from Thursday, January 17 to Sunday, January 20 in her community of Capulálpan de Méndez, in Oaxaca State, Mexico.

Kendy was interviewed for Real World Radio by Mónica Montalvo, who is participating in and covering the event.

The community activist pointed out that the goal is to promote joint experiences of resistance, based on some of the victories reached, for instance that of Capulálpan.

“Historically, this is a mining region, however there are plans to promote open-pit mining, which due to the demands of the organized community we managed to suspend because it threatens life in the community,” said Kendy.

The Mesoamerican Peoples Meeting “Yes to life, no to mining” beginning today aims to analyze the consequences of mining in the Mesoamerican territories and generate defense and organization alternatives from the peoples, the authorities and organizations.

This event will address the mining situation in Mesoamerica; indigenous rights and mining; strategies of defense and peoples’ alternatives for well-living.

This is a moment of reflection for organizations from Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, Canada and Mexico, that have joined different resistance processes to defend indigenous and peasant territories against mining.

The event is called by municipal and community authorities of Capulálpam de Méndez, the Coordinator of Peoples United of Valle de Ocotlán (CPUVO), the Oaxaca Group in Defense of Territories, University Services and Networks of Knowledge of Oaxaca (SURCO), the Mexican Network of People Affected by Mining (REMA), the Mesoamerican Movement against the Mining Extractivist Model (M4), the National Indigenous Missions Support Center (CENAMI AC).

In Mexico there have been a series of problems directly related to the arrival of mining companies, such as in Baja California, San Luís Potosí, Nayarit, Puebla, Veracruz, Chiapas, Guerrero and Oaxaca. In Oaxaca social problems have especially deepened due to the mining projects, such as the cases of Capulálpam de Méndez in Sierra Juarez and San Jose del Progreso in Valle de Ocatlan.

According to Banco de México, in just a decade the income of the sector went from fifth to third place, only exceeded by oil and automobile incomes.

According to the president of the Mexican Mining Chamber, 60 per cent of the national territory remains unexplored. But what Banco de México or the mining industry are not saying is that this growth is based on the destruction of the environment, overlooking the rights of the landowners, peasants and indigenous people.

At the end of the interview with Real World Radio, Kendy said that the community is in charge of the logistics of the event and is also broadcasting it live through local community radios and online live streaming.

Kendy invited everyone to learn about the resistance in her community through photos and texts available from its Facebook page.

Original article published by Radio Mundo Real in English | Español

Creative Commons CC BY-SA 3.0 license

Blogs | Climate and energy | Environmental justice | December 20, 2012

Climate change and farmers’ livelihoods

Farmers across Canada have been dealing with changing weather patterns in recent years. From droughts and floods in the Prairies to storms and blights in the Maritimes, people who rely on the land to make a living are suddenly being forced to adapt.

Over the past few months one of our volunteer researchers, Bryan Dale, has been looking into these issues. So far, his investigation has proven to be very revealing, as farmers from across the country have shared diverse and troubling stories about how climate change is affecting them.

In Ontario, for example, apple farmers are struggling through one of the worst growing years in recent memory. Due to an unusually long period of warm weather in March, followed by a spring frost, the buds of most apple trees were killed off, leaving farmers with 15 to 20 per cent of their usual yield. Producers in the southwest of the province have reported that this may be the worst climatic event they’ve experienced since 1945.

On coastal areas of British Columbia apple farmers have also experienced problems, but for a different reason. In that region, a severe infestation of tent caterpillars devastated crops and forced farmers to cancel a long-standing apple festival. As in Ontario, they are left hoping that these types of extreme circumstances will not develop into a pattern that would be repeated with any frequency.

Yet this may be just what is in store for farmers. According to a researcher with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada in Quebec, scientists are developing a range of models to predict how anticipated fluctuations in weather patterns and infestations by pests may affect various crops. While some vegetables may benefit from our changing climate, there is certainly many that will suffer, compelling agricultural producers to change both how and what they grow.

It is already clear that many farmers are paying the price of having to adapt. Apart from crop yields that have plummeted due to extreme weather events, most producers have noticed that the seasons are changing. According to one organic grower, “Due to weather volatility, we are seeing a lot of farmers add greenhouses and hoop-houses to their operations, to help create more stable environments. Certainly, the Maritime farmers are seeing strong storms from hurricanes. Blight and fusarium are also quite common now.”

Friends of the Earth will continue to look further into these issues, including by exploring how small-scale and organic farmers may be disproportionately vulnerable to the impacts of increasingly severe and frequent climatic events. We will also examine whether existing government compensation programs may be insufficient to help farmers adapt as they need to. Throughout, our research will consider the political or legal recourses these farmers may have, and how we can support them.

If trends such as those witnessed this year are to continue, agricultural producers will certainly need the support. Whether it is livestock farmers who do not have enough hay to feed their animals due to drought, or maple syrup farmers who are dealing with a noticeable decline in the quality of their product, across Canada people are wondering what is in store.

And, of course, consumers need to be concerned about these trends as well. As the bumper stickers say, farmers feed cities.

Beatrice Olivastri

Extractive industries | Radio Mundo Real | Water | December 11, 2012

Not one step back

Guatemala: Resistance to mining in San José del Golfo continues despite repression

Radio Mundo Real

December 11, 2012

In the early morning of Thursday, December 6, the Guatemalan riot police repressed, beat up and kidnapped members of the community of San José del Golfo and San Pedro Ayampuc near Guatemala City, who have been on a vigil for ten months to block the mining equipment of the company Exmingua.

Even though there were no formal accusations against them, the police officers ordered the community members to leave the place or they would destroy the precarious shelters placed on the side of the road where every day they produce food for nearly 200 people while they take turns to protest.

Milton Carrera, one of the community members who was arrested at the place, told Real World Radio that the police operation was illegal. They had no chance to defend themselves and said they were incommunicado for six hours, which is equivalent to kidnapping in his opinion.

“This was all based on false accusations,” said Milton. “They almost strangled me.” During the eviction, the police threw tear gas at the people, and they beat up elderly people and even children, said Milton. He added that “We are living under a repressive government, nothing is respected: there was no eviction warrant from a judge nor from President Otto Pérez Molina or from the Minister of Interior.”

He also said that the Minister of Interior of Guatemala, Mauricio López Bonilla publicly threatened to expel the foreigners who are fighting against mining with the communities because of the lack of water in the area and the large demand for the resource by the extractive industry. “We need more international human rights observers to confront the military government,” said Milton.

A month ago, an international delegation of the environmental federation Friends of the Earth visited the resistance camp and expressed its solidarity and commitment to raise international awareness about their struggle and objectives.

Carrera said that on Sunday, December 9, the community decided in an assembly to continue the protest until the very end. “The struggle continues, we will stay here and the people are willing to die for this cause. If (the government) wants to talk, they should come to Puya. We shall not move from there, not one step back.”

Original article published by Radio Mundo Real in English | Español

2012 Media releases | Environmental justice | December 7, 2012

Supreme Court decision leaves taxpayers with the bill for cleaning up AbitibiBowater’s pollution

For immediate release

(Ottawa, December 7, 2012) The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision today in Newfoundland and Labrador v. AbitibiBowater Inc. et al., which addresses the legal obligations of insolvent companies with respect to contaminated sites.

Friends of the Earth, represented by legal counsel from Ecojustice and Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, intervened in the case to argue that the law requires that insolvent corporations retain their environmental obligations through a restructuring and must not burden taxpayers with the costs of cleaning up contaminated sites.

The Supreme Court decided that remediation orders, which required AbitibiBowater (now Resolute Forest Products) to clean up after years of pollution, are equivalent to private financial claims under insolvency law. The end result is that taxpayers will bear much of the financial and environmental costs associated with cleaning up Abitibi’s industrial sites.

Beatrice Olivastri, CEO, Friends of the Earth observed, “The Supreme Court missed an important opportunity to affirm the correct application of the ‘polluter pays’ principle in insolvency proceedings. The Court’s decision effectively limits a polluter’s liability to what it can pay as part of a compromise it designed, not out of the billions (in this case) in profit going forward.”

This ground-breaking case represents the first time Canada’s insolvency law has confronted the polluter pays principle — in this case, for historic contamination by AbitibiBowater’s mining, shipping, and pulp and paper operations in Newfoundland and Labrador. The company filed for insolvency protection in 2009, leaving a toxic legacy of heavy metals and other hazardous chemicals.

When companies fail, the typical result is that communities and governments must deal with pollution clean-up costs. Friends of the Earth believes that corporations must be made to disclose the clean-up costs for their contamination — historic and continuing — in financial reports on an ongoing basis. “They should not be allowed to pass the buck on to taxpayers, leaving a toxic burden for communities when a plant shuts down,” says Olivastri.

“The Supreme Court has delivered a clear message: if the federal and provincial governments are not proactively issuing remediation orders, then taxpayers risk being left with the cleanup costs after companies file for insolvency protection. Remediation orders must be issued and acted upon before a company goes under,” says Ecojustice lawyer Will Amos.

“In the context of a natural resource economy, protecting the environment also means protecting future resource-based industry,” says Graham Phoenix of Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP. “To draw an analogy to the environmental law principle of intergenerational equity: the businesses of today must be good stewards of the environment for the businesses of tomorrow. If not, we are ensuring not only a legacy of environmental contamination but also a stagnant economic future.”

“This decision proves that federal insolvency laws require significant reform so that they don’t serve to protect companies and investors at the expense of taxpayers and environmental protection. The Companies Creditors Arrangement Act must be amended by Parliament so that taxpayers are not left holding the bag when companies go insolvent,” says Hugh Wilkins of Ecojustice. “Polluter pays is about corporate liability. The fundamental objective of the polluter pays principle is to ensure the polluter internalizes the environmental costs of business. Taxpayers should not be left with clean-up costs for toxic legacies from abandoned mines and mills.”

- 30 -

The polluter pays principle is among the most important environmental law concepts in Canada. It is the basic idea behind clean-up orders, penalties and cost recovery decisions. Implementing polluter pays involves polluters taking responsibility for remedying contamination for which they are responsible and imposes on them the direct and immediate costs of pollution. As pioneers advocating for this principle to be put into practice, Friends of the Earth, represented by legal counsel at Ecojustice, intervened in one of the earliest, precedent-setting polluter pay cases in Canada — Imperial Oil Ltd v. Quebec (Minister of the Environment) — in 2003.

Background information:

Media release, November 16, 2011
Friends of the Earth, Ecojustice ask Supreme Court to respect polluter pays principle
http://foecanada.org/en/2011/11/respect-polluter-pays-principle/

Supreme Court of Canada Decision
http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/12749/index.do

Friends of the Earth Factum
http://foecanada.org/en/files/2012/12/factum-intervener-foe-canada-abitibibowater.pdf

Background / chronology — Polluter Pays: Newfoundland and Labrador v. AbitibiBowater Inc.
http://foecanada.org/en/2012/12/polluter-pays-newfoundland-and-labrador-abitibibowater/

For more information, contact:

Beatrice Olivastri
Friends of the Earth Canada
Email: beatrice [at] foecanada.org
Tel: (613) 241-0085 ext. 26

William Amos
Ecojustice Environmental Law Clinic
Email: wamos [at] ecojustice.ca
Tel: (613) 562-5800 ext. 3378

R. Graham Phoenix
Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP
Email: gphoenix [at] fasken.com
Tel: (416) 865-4511

Hugh S. Wilkins
Ecojustice Canada
Email: hwilkins [at] ecojustice.ca
Tel: (416) 368-7533 ext. 534

Friends of the Earth Canada is the Canadian member of Friends of the Earth International, the world’s largest grassroots environmental network campaigning on today’s most urgent environmental and social issues. foecanada.org

Ecojustice is a non-profit charitable organization dedicated to defending Canadians’ right to a healthy environment. We defend Canada’s environment through law. We have one planet and we believe it is our collective responsibility to take care of it. www.ecojustice.ca

2012 Media releases | Environmental justice | December 7, 2012

La décision de la Cour suprême laisse aux contribuables la facture de nettoyage de la pollution d’AbitibiBowater

Pour diffusion immédiate

(Ottawa, le 7 décembre 2012) La Cour suprême du Canada a rendu aujourd’hui sa décision dans la cause Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador c. AbitibiBowater Inc. et al., qui porte sur les obligations légales des entreprises insolvables à l’égard de sites contaminés.

Les Ami(e)s de la Terre, représenté par des avocats d’Écojustice et de Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, est intervenu dans cette affaire en faisant valoir que la loi exige que les sociétés insolvables conservent leurs obligations environnementales au-delà d’une restructuration et qu’elles ne transfèrent pas aux contribuables le fardeau des coûts de nettoyage de sites contaminés.

La Cour suprême a décidé que les ordonnances de remise en état, qui exigent d’AbitibiBowater (maintenant « Produits forestiers Résolu ») de nettoyer ses sites après des années de pollution, équivalent à des créances privées en vertu du droit de l’insolvabilité. Le résultat final est que les contribuables devront écoper de la majeure partie des coûts financiers et environnementaux associés au nettoyage des sites industriels d’AbitibiBowater.

Selon Beatrice Olivastri, présidente-directrice générale des Ami(e)s de la Terre, « La Cour suprême vient de rater une occasion importante de valider la bonne application du principe du “pollueur-payeur” dans les procédures d’insolvabilité. La décision de la Cour pour effet de limiter la responsabilité d’un pollueur à ce que celui-ci accepte de payer dans le cadre d’un compromis qu’il a conçu, plutôt qu’à partir des milliards de dollars de profit (dans ce cas) qu’il va encaisser en allant de l’avant. »

Cette cause crée un précédent : c’est la première fois où le droit canadien de l’insolvabilité au Canada est confronté au principe du pollueur-payeur — dans ce cas-ci au sujet d’une contamination historique de Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador par les activités d’exploitation minière, d’expédition et de fabrication de papier de l’entreprise AbitibiBowater. La société a demandé la protection des tribunaux en vertu des lois sur l’insolvabilité en 2009, laissant dans l’environnement un héritage toxique de métaux lourds et autres produits chimiques dangereux.

Lorsque les entreprises échouent, le résultat habituel est que les communautés et les gouvernements doivent assumer les coûts de nettoyage de leur pollution. Les Ami(e)s de la Terre estiment que les entreprises doivent être forcées à divulguer sur une base continue les coûts de dépollution pour leur contamination — historique et continue — dans leurs rapports financiers annuels. « Elles ne devraient pas être autorisées à se décharger de cette responsabilité sur les contribuables, ce qui laisse un fardeau toxique aux communautés quand une usine ferme ses portes », ajoute Madame Olivastri.

« La Cour suprême vient de livrer un message clair : si les gouvernements fédéral et provinciaux ne se montrent pas proactifs dans l’émission d’ordonnances d’assainissement, puis les contribuables risquent d’écoper des coûts de nettoyage dès qu’une entreprise réclame la protection des lois sur l’insolvabilité. Ces ordonnances d’assainissement doivent être émises et exécutées avant qu’une entreprise déclare faillite », explique l’avocat d’Écojustice Will Amos.

« Dans le contexte d’une économie des ressources naturelles, la protection de l’environnement signifie aussi protéger l’avenir des industries axées sur les ressources », ajoute Graham Phoenix de Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP. « Pour faire une analogie avec le principe de l’équité intergénérationnelle en droit de l’environnement, les entreprises d’aujourd’hui doivent être de bons intendants de l’environnement en pensant aux entreprises de demain. Sinon, nous faisons en sorte de garantir non seulement un héritage de contamination de l’environnement mais aussi un avenir de stagnation économique. »

« Cette décision prouve que les lois fédérales sur l’insolvabilité exigent une réforme importante de sorte qu’elles ne servent pas à protéger les entreprises et les investisseurs au détriment des contribuables et de la protection de l’environnement. La Loi sur les arrangements avec les créanciers des compagnies doit être modifiée par le Parlement afin que les contribuables n’aient pas à payer les pots cassés lorsque des entreprises deviennent insolvables », explique Hugh Wilkins, d’Écojustice. « Le principe du pollueur-payeur est sur la responsabilité des entreprises. L’objectif fondamental du principe pollueur-payeur est fondé sur la responsabilité corporative. L’objectif fondamental de ce principe est de s’assurer que le pollueur internalise les coûts environnementaux de l’entreprise. Les contribuables ne devraient pas se retrouver avec les coûts de dépollution liés aux legs toxiques des mines et des usines abandonnées. »

- 30 -

Le principe du pollueur-payeur est l’un des concepts les plus importants du droit de l’environnement au Canada. C’est l’idée de base qui sous-tend les ordonnances de nettoyage, les sanctions et les décisions de recouvrement des coûts. La mise en œuvre de ce principe implique que les pollueurs assument la responsabilité de remédier à toute contamination dont ils sont responsables et leur impose les coûts directs et immédiats de la pollution. En tant que pionniers plaidant pour que ce principe soit mis en pratique, Les Ami(e)s de la Terre, représentés par un avocat d’Écojustice, sont intervenus dans l’une des toutes premières causes de pollueur-payeur à avoir fait précédent au Canada — Cie pétrolière Impériale ltée c. Québec (Ministre de l’Environnement), en 2003.

Informations générales :

Communiqué de presse, le 16 novembre 2011
« Friends of the Earth, Ecojustice ask Supreme Court to respect polluter pays principle »
http://foecanada.org/en/2011/11/respect-polluter-pays-principle/

La décision de la Cour suprême du Canada
http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/12749/index.do

Le mémoire déposé par Les Ami(e)s de la Terre
http://foecanada.org/en/files/2012/12/factum-intervener-foe-canada-abitibibowater.pdf

Contexte / chronologie — pollueur-payeur: Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador c.
AbitibiBowater Inc.
http://foecanada.org/en/2012/12/polluter-pays-newfoundland-and-labrador-abitibibowater/

Pour plus de renseignements :

Beatrice Olivastri
Les Ami(e)s de la Terre Canada
Courriel : beatrice [at] foecanada.org
Tél : (613) 241-0085 poste 26

William Amos
Clinique de droit environnemental d’Écojustice
Courriel : wamos [at] ecojustice.ca
Tél : (613) 562-5800 poste 3378

R. Graham Phoenix
Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP
Courriel : gphoenix [at] fasken.com
Tél : (416) 865-4511

Hugh S. Wilkins
Écojustice Canada
Courriel : hwilkins [at] ecojustice.ca
Tél : (416) 368-7533 ext. 534

Les Ami(e)s de la Terre Canada est le membre canadien de Les Amis de la Terre International, le plus grand réseau écologiste mondial, qui mène campagne sur les questions environnementales et sociales contemporaines les plus urgentes. foecanada.org

Écojustice est une organisation à but non lucratif vouée à la défense du droit des Canadiens et des Canadiennes à un environnement sain. Nous défendons au moyen du droit l’environnement au Canada. Nous n’avons qu’une planète et nous croyons qu’il relève de notre responsabilité collective d’en prendre soin. www.ecojustice.ca

Environmental justice | December 6, 2012

Polluter Pays: Newfoundland and Labrador v. AbitibiBowater Inc.

AbitibiBowater mill in Grand Falls-Windsor, Newfoundland and Labrador. Photo: William Munoz. Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0) license.

On December 7, the Supreme Court of Canada is expected to announce a decision on the case of Newfoundland and Labrador v. AbitibiBowater Inc. et al (now known as Resolute Forest Products).

This ground-breaking legal case represents the first time Canada’s insolvency law has dealt with the polluter pays principle — in this case, for historic contamination by AbitibiBowater’s mining, shipping and pulp and paper operations in Newfoundland and Labrador. The company filed for insolvency protection in 2008, leaving a toxic legacy of heavy metals and other hazardous chemicals.

AbitibiBowater’s sites in Newfoundland and Labrador. OpenStreetMap, Creative Commons CC BY-SA 2.0 license.

Friends of the Earth, represented by Ecojustice, intervened to argue that insolvent corporations must fulfill their environmental obligations and not pass the full cost of environmental cleanups on to taxpayers.

As pioneers advocating for this principle to be put into practice, Friends of the Earth represented by legal counsel at Ecojustice, intervened in one of the earliest, precedent-setting polluter pay cases in Canada — Imperial Oil Ltd v. Quebec (Minister of the Environment) — in 2003.

Chronology

Key dates in the lead up to the December 7, 2012 decision by the Supreme Court of Canada

Date	Event
December 4, 2008	AbitibiBowater announces that it will close its paper mill in Grand Falls-Windsor at the end of March 2009.¹ ¹ “AbitibiBowater may take legal action over N.L. expropriation of assets,” CBC News, December 17, 2008.
December 16, 2008	Newfoundland and Labrador legislature passes legislation to expropriate AbitibiBowater’s assets. The legislation allows AbitibiBowater to continue operating the mill in Grand Falls-Windsor until the end of March, 2009.² Abitibi-Consolidated’s timber licenses and water use rights were cancelled, and these rights reverted to the Crown. The Act also expropriated the company’s land, assets, and easements, including transmission lines, poles and associated facilities. Assets that were expropriated included the Millertown Dam, Bishop’s Falls Power House, Buchans Dam, Goodyears Dam, Grand Falls Power Plant, and control structures. The Act included a provision addressing the company’s environmental contamination: “Nothing in this Act affects the liability of Abitibi-Consolidated related to undertakings made by it in relation to environmental remediation.” ³ ² “AbitibiBowater may take legal action over N.L. expropriation of assets,” CBC News, December 17, 2008. ³ Abitibi-Consolidated Rights and Assets Act, December 16, 2008.
December 19, 2008	AbitibiBowater sends a letter to Premier Danny Williams, warning that it will file a trade complaint if the province proceeds with the expropriation of its assets.⁴ ⁴ “Abitibi says Newfoundland expropriation illegal,” Reuters, December 19, 2008.
March 28, 2009	AbitibiBowater shuts its Grand Falls-Windsor paper mill, and 800 workers lose their jobs.⁵ ⁵ “AbitibiBowater workers finish final shifts at N.L. paper mill,” CBC News, March 27, 2009.
April 16, 2009	AbitibiBowater files for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of U.S. bankruptcy legislation in a Delaware court. The company says it will file for bankruptcy protection in a Canadian court the following day.⁶ ⁶ “AbitibiBowater files for bankruptcy protection,” CBC News, April 16, 2009.
February 25, 2010	AbitibiBowater files a complaint under Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) over the expropriation of its Newfoundland assets by the provincial government. It seeks $500 million in compensation, alleging that the expropriation was unfair and discriminatory.⁷ ⁷ Bertrand Marotte, “AbitibiBowater fights Danny Williams with NAFTA challenge,“ Globe and Mail, February 25, 2010.
August 24, 2010	NAFTA settlement announced. The federal government will pay a $130-million settlement, and AbitibiBowater will withdraw its claim under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).⁸ ⁹ ⁸ Daniel MacEachern, “Feds to pay AbitibiBowater $130M over expropriation,” The Telegram, August 25, 2010. ⁹ “Feds to pay AbitibiBowater $130 million over Newfoundland expropriation,” Toronto Star/Canadian Press, August 24, 2010.
November 25, 2010	The Supreme Court of Canada agrees to hear Newfoundland and Labrador’s appeal of a ruling that favoured AbitibiBowater. The province wants AbitibiBowater to pay for the environmental cleanup costs at five sites.¹⁰ ¹⁰ “AbitibiBowater appeal heads to Supreme Court,” CBC News, November 25, 2010.
November 16, 2011	Friends of the Earth, represented by Ecojustice, appears before the Supreme Court of Canada to argue that insolvent corporations cannot shift the cost of cleaning up environmental contamination to the taxpayer.¹¹ ¹² ¹³ ¹¹ “Friends of the Earth, Ecojustice ask Supreme Court to respect polluter pays principle,” Friends of the Earth Canada/Ecojustice, November 16, 2011. ¹² Webcast of the hearing on November 16, 2011, Supreme Court of Canada. ¹³ Supreme Court of Canada case information: Factums.
December 7, 2012	The Supreme Court of Canada will deliver its judgment in the appeal in the case of Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador v. AbitibiBowater Inc. et al.¹⁴ ¹⁴ “Judgment to be Rendered in Appeal,” Supreme Court of Canada, December 3, 2012.

2012 Media releases | Extractive industries | Water | November 22, 2012

Demand the release of unjustly detained Guatemalan prisoners

Friends of the Earth International

November 22, 2012

Join Friends of the Earth International in calling for the release of eight political prisoners in Barillas, Guatemala, who are due before a hearing on November 26.

Send an email to the Guatemalan authorities.

Eleven people were arrested without charge on May 2, 2012 in a flagrant violation of their rights. Several of those arrested had protested the killing of a community member by private security guards working for Spanish company Hidralia SA. Others were simply randomly picked up.

Hidralia SA is building the Santa Cruz hydroelectric dam. Over 90% of local community members are opposed to and voted against the implementation of hydroelectric and mining projects in Barillas in a 2007 consultation.

Eight people remain in prison over seven months after the arrests, as verified by Friends of the Earth International’s Solidarity Mission in November this year.

The prisoners are also concerned for the wellbeing of their wives and children who have been deprived of their main household income. Many struggle with heavy debt burdens. The bus journey from their home communities to the prison takes twelve hours, making it difficult for families to visit.

The prisoners have been labeled as terrorists, despite the fact that they were either peacefully defending their communities or not involved at all.

Three of the prisoners have since been released.

The arbitrary nature of the detention of the political prisoners of Barillas cannot be denied nor concealed, it appears in the reports of several human rights groups, as well as in the file of the case and in the legal actions brought by the lawyers of the detainees.

You can support the prisoners of Barillas by sending a letter to the Guatemalan authorities and the Spanish Embassy. This action will only succeed with the solidarity of a large number of supporters, so spread the word by sharing this action on Facebook, Twitter and by email.

Take action now!

Send an email to the Guatemalan authorities

For more information

Article published by Radio Mundo Real in English | Español

Friends of the Earth International press release