Center for Human Rights and the Environment

In this document we address the relationship between development, human rights, and the environment to outline the effects of environmental degradation on the development of countries and on the enjoyment of human rights in the American continent. This builds towards implementation of Resolution 1819 on human rights and the environment approved in the Third Plenary Session of the OAS General Assembly held on June 5, 2001 in San Jose de Costa Rica[1]. Resolution 1819 emphasizes the importance of studying the linkages between the environment and the human rights, and it mandates a study of the interrelationship between environmental protection and the enjoyment of human rights. The central purpose of this work is to assist the Organization of American States in the implementation of the resolution.

The paper is organized as follows: part I offers a brief account on the state of development of the poorest countries in the Americas and its relationship with the environment and the human rights. Part II analyses the linkages between environmental degradation and hemispheric security. Part III refers to the relationship environment-human rights-economy. Part IV reviews most recent actions taken by various international bodies reflecting world recognition of the links between human rights and environment. Part V presents some aspects of environmental degradation and their impact on the enjoyment and exercise of human rights. Part VI illustrates by examples the social problems posed by environmental degradation which lead to human rights violations. Part VII discusses ways to address the practical aspects of the link human rights-environment from a legal perspective. Finally, part VIII suggests an action plan to implement Resolution 1819 at the core of the OAS; immediately afterwards we present general conclusions.

Note: This document has two annexes attached a) Text Resolution 1819 (XXXI-O/01), and b) memo of the Center for Human Rights and the Environment “Proposal for the adoption of Inter-American legislation on human rights and the environment”.

I. THE NEED FOR A NEW DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

The introduction of social and environmental dimensions into development strategies is a must for the Americas. This has been clearly evidenced over the last decades, during which an increasing degradation of habitats, discontent, violence, and social inequality are challenging current models of economic development.

The number of poor people in Latin America increases annually. According to the World Bank estimates, the number of people living with less than a dollar per day was 78,2 million in 1998, and 63,7 million in 1987. This is to say that in one decade the number of poor people increased to fifteen million in Latin America and the Caribbean[2]. On the other hand, the region of Latin America is one that presents the world’s highest level of inequality as regards income (IABD, 1998-1999)[3].

Poverty has clear social and legal consequences, since when deprivation is extreme, rights become abstract.[4]

On a world scale, in many occasions,[5] it has been stated that poverty entails violations of basic human rights and nowadays, the ambitious goal of the United Nations and the World Bank to eradicate poverty has become a priority even in the framework of other bodies that traditionally have not directly addressed this problem, such as the WTO and the IMF.

In the same fashion, the international community has increased its awareness on the existing relationship between environmental degradation and human rights abuses, and its critical attitude has an influence on the well-being and development of the peoples. It is clear that, poverty situations and human rights abuses are worsened by environmental degradation, because environmental degradation:

· Generates poverty: The exhaustion of natural resources leads to, unemployment and emigration to cities. In the south of Honduras, for example, habitat degradation caused by land erosion forced residents to migrate northward. Most of these workers were not immune to malaria common to the area, which increased the number of sicknesses in the region from 20,000 in 1987 to 90,000 in 1993. [6]

· Affects the enjoyment and exercise of basic human rights. Environmental conditions contribute to a large extent, to the spread of infectious diseases, which each year account for 20% and 25% of deaths all over the world. From the 4,400 million of people who live in developing countries, almost 60% lack basic health care services, almost a third of these people have no access to safe water supply.[7]

· Poses new problems such as environmental refugees: Environmental refugees suffer from significant economic, socio-cultural, and political consequences. Nowadays, developed countries pay 8,000 million dollars annually to house these refugees, which accounts for a seventh of the external assistance provided to developing countries.[8]

· Worsens existing problems suffered by developing and developed countries. Air pollution, for example, accounts for 2.7 million to 3.0 million of deaths annually and of these, 90% are from developing countries. Atmospheric pollution harms more than 1,100 million persons and accounts for over half a million deaths in cities annually; almost 30% of these deaths occur in developed countries.

The American hemisphere has a vast tradition of human rights defense. However, the development of environmental law on a regional scale already presents a considerable number of weaknesses especially in relation to its enforcement and liability to be demanded.

The Protocol of San Salvador[9]consecrates the right to a healthy environment[10] and a number of countries in the region introduce prescriptions related to environmental management into their constitutions[11], recognizing in their domestic law the link between human rights and the environment. However, the facts show that a higher level of regional cooperation is imperative to achieve relevant advances on this direction.

The transboundary nature of environmental degradation makes it absolutely necessary to contest the will of the States. Cooperation among states is the most effective tool to face this problem.

The OAS, the only hemispheric organization with rich and vast experience in the defense of human rights, is the natural forum in which to address this linkage. The consequences of environmental degradation on the human rights, its great impact on the development of the region, and the damaging effects of this degradation particularly suffered by the poor, extends like a shadow over all the underdeveloped states of the American continent. If we are to achieve a more equitable Americas, with more dignity and respect for its natural heritage, a new development strategy in the continent cannot be delayed.

II. ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION AND HEMISPHERIC SECURITY

Apart from the impacts of environmental degradation on the human rights, it is worth noting that environmental degradation has important political connotations, which will increase in the future. Latin America and the Caribbean is considered as: “The region with the highest level of ecological surplus in the world, with 3.93 surface units per person, due to its high natural biological availability (6.39 units)” [12]

The continent’s economic development mainly depends on its natural resources. Their conservation becomes a strategic matter of first order. Just to illustrate we can mention:

Biodiversity

The majority of the most effective pharmaceutical products in the world, 42% of the most-purchased drugs derive from vegetal or animal compounds that are usually found in tropical climates where biological diversity is higher. The global market of pharmaceutical products is valued as US$75 to US$150 billion.[13] During the period 1990-1995, 3% of the forest surface was lost. In the period 1988-1997, Brazil lost about 15 million hectares of wooded zones, according to the GEO-2000 report. The loss of forest surface threatens the region’s biological diversity. If the accelerated actual deforestation estimates continue, and if nothing is done to redress them, it is likely that the last primary tropical wood will disappear in the next 50 years.

Water resources

While during the last 70 years the world population has tripled, the use of water has increased six-fold. Worldwide, 54% of available fresh water is consumed, of which two thirds are destined to agriculture. Towards 2025 this proportion could increase to 70%, exclusively due to the increase of the population or—if per capita consumption in every country reaches the level reached in most developed countries—, to 90%. The Americas contain some of the major water reserves of the world.

Competition to obtain water supplies that are growingly scarcer increases the probability of international conflicts to blow up (economic as well as military), due to the water quality and the facilities needed to canalize it. There are more than 200 waterway systems that crosscut national borders. There are 13 important rivers and lakes shared by 100 countries.[14]

If we take into account elements such as the cost-benefit relationship[15]in environmental degradation processes or the possibility to meet the needs of an increasingly populated planet, having its natural resources in a process of genuine and accelerated exhaustion, (human population exceeded the planet’s capacity for sustainability in the year 1978, in the year 2000 this capacity was exceeded 1.4 times)[16], we may reach the conclusion that the introduction of environmental and social dimensions into the conception of development and the legal protection of the environment in relation to human rights are not only ethical questions, but they also become basic issues of survival.

III. ENVIRONMENT, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND ECONOMY

Given the clear evidence that economic growth has not halted poverty in the Third World, nor has it stopped environmental degradation and contamination in the First World, nations are in a process of reconsidering the relationship between economy and ecology.

Thus, to the traditional position of economic growth at all costs, it followed a more integral idea of development that not only responds to the economic aspect but also considers other elements, such as the human dimension of the economy as well as environmental dimensions. The paradigm of this conception is the idea of sustainable development:

“In this context it is considered that sustainable development pursues the achievement of three objectives: a purely economic objective, efficiency in the use of resources, and quantitative growth; a social and cultural objective, the restraints of poverty, the conservation of social and cultural systems, and social equity; and an ecologic objective, the preservation of physical and biological systems (natural resources lato sensu) that support the life of human beings.”[17]

However, despite the worldwide tendency to reform the conception of development, a vast majority of nations of the American Hemisphere suffer from the consequences of national and international economic policies that have forced them into conditions of extreme poverty, resulting in severe environmental degradation and human rights abuses.

The irrational exploitation of non-renewable resources, the scarce or lack of control over environmental variables of production and consumption, export of environmental charges from industrialized countries to developing countries, transport of toxic substances, export of chemical products declared as toxic by industrialized countries, reduction of environmental standards by multinational corporations and the imposition of dual standards, are examples of the detriment produced to natural resources and the people of the American States.

The lack of accurate legislation and control, make the American territory a “paradise of contamination”. Companies which comply with strict environmental norms at home, pollute the atmosphere and rivers of host countries without suffering the legal consequences of their actions. What is even more concerning is that in many cases these aggressive acts of contamination result in serious consequences for human populations, who are victims of fatal diseases that are directly linked to the degradation of their environment with extremely high economic costs for the State.

Cost-benefit studies conducted in Asia and Latin America show that the damage caused by contamination is unjustifiably high, given the low cost that would prevent it. Further actions are needed in three fields: regulatory reforms, reform of economic policies, and better environmental management by businesses.[18]

National economies that are not able to bear the huge costs of infrastructure that demand the problems of environmental degradation, are cases of aggravating situations of human rights abuses:

Cost of Impacts on Health due to Urban Contamination in Latin America[19]

Annual Cost of Impacts on Health (millions of US$)

Coun tries	Area Covered by the Estimate	Water Pollution	Air Pollution
Brazil	National	130-389 ---	--- 2.4 - 3.5
Brazil	Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro and Cubatao	130-389 ---	--- 2.4 - 3.5
Chile	Santiago	96-149	100
Colom bia	Bogotá	16.9	4.9 - 15.6
Ecuador	Pichincha, Guayas and El Oro, Quito	133	57
Mexico	National	3,600	--- 1,077
Mexico	Mexico City	3,600	--- 1,077
Peru	National	500 – 1,000	---

Given the problems of non-renewable resources extraction, contamination caused by multinational corporations, and the economic and institutional difficulties to bear the costs of environmental degradation, developing countries are the ones who suffer from the effects of unlimited consumption on the part of industrialized nations:

Consumption in industrialized countries has direct effects on the developing world. For example, almost 1,000 million residents of 40 developing countries are at the risk of loosing their main source of proteins, fish, as the excessive fishing impelled by the demand of fodder and oil in industrialized countries puts even more pressure on the stock of fishes, already curtailed. And the 111 million persons that will be added to the actual population in USA in the next 50 years will increase the demand for energy in higher levels than the actual demand for energy in Africa and Latin America combined. A child that is born today in an industrialized country will add to consumption and contamination during his/her life more than what will 30 to 50 children born in developing countries.[20]

States embark alone on a path to development. Regional agreements and cooperation on economic and environmental issues are key elements to achieve short-term outcomes. Nor can we embrace a concept of development which leaves people at the margins. Countries with higher economic stability are the ones that present lower inequality indexes, where democratic participation is allowed and economic benefits reach the whole population. [21]

Economic growth with people at the margins is not development. To protect environmental resources and to ensure the full respect for economic, social, and cultural rights does not equate with halting economic or technological growth, but rather extends its benefits to the whole population in the present and enables the development of future generations.

IV. WORLDWIDE CONSENT ON THE LINK BETWEEN HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE ENVIRONMENT: Recent Actions of International Bodies.

Over the last decade, the world community is realizing the importance of the link between human rights and the environment to achieve the full enjoyment of the human rights. Few are the issues of major concern in the international agenda as the ones composed by human rights and the environment. They constitute a common denominator dealt in the course of World Conferences during the last decade of the century; which gave rise to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio de Janeiro 1992), the II Universal Conference on Human Rights (Vienna 1993), the International Conference on Population and Development (Cairo 1994), and the UN II Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II, Istanbul 1996).

This section exemplifies some of the actions taken by international organizations as regards the recognition of this link.

United Nations

In the mid 1990s, recognizing the urgent need and importance of deepening the link between human rights and the environment, and of exploring ways to achieve a better collaboration, harmony, and complement the agendas of different United Nations institutions working on both subjects, the UN created the position of Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Environment. The Rapporteur prepared an important report called (The Ksentini Report), which offered a theoretical, thematic, and practical framework to address the linkages between human rights and the environment. [22]

In the legal field, United Nations recognized that one of the most remarkable faults is the legal integration of both fields. The international environmental law and the human rights law, which offer basic tools to effectively address the human-environmental problem, remain isolated from one another.

In the programmatic field, the major challenge that emerged from the Ksentini Report is to ensure that the High Commission for Human Rights is able to complement its task to protect and promote the human rights with the work of the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP). In this sense, it is necessary that both institutions analyze their agendas respectively and seek common points for collaboration.

Finally, in the political field, state support is necessary to create spaces, institutional as well as political, to ensure that these agendas are close. It is clear that this requires economic support and political willingness to develop new agendas that arise from the process.

While exploring this arena in more detail, States found that one of the most urgent needs was to control the transboundary transport of toxic waste, and to this end, a new Special Rapporteur was created to address this problem.

Thus, following a petition of the States, the mission of the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Environment turned to focus on illegal transboundary transport of toxic waste. More recently, after the requirement of the UN Commission on Human Rights, supported by the High Commission for Human Rights at its highest level and the UNEP Director, in view of the coming Second Earth Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002, United Nations is analyzing which are the advances achieved in the promotion and protection of the human rights and the environment in the implementation of Agenda 21.

In this new drive, United Nations has asked 25 worldwide experts on human rights and environment[23], to propose concrete recommendations for the states to advance this agenda in the future. The experts meeting took place in January, 2002, and the recommendations include: strengthening of constitutions and local and international legislation, extension of Conventions such as the Aarhus European Convention on Participation to other countries and regions, collaboration and programmatic harmonization among environmental and human rights institutions, and exchange and attendance UN institutions staff working on human rights and environment.

The next step for the High Commission and the UNEP is to achieve the implementation of its institutional collaboration. In this vein, the political support that could arise from the Second Earth Summit on Sustainable Development this year in Johannesburg, as well as the OAS work in this arena will be fundamental.

United Nations Development Program (UNDP)

The UNDP has incorporated an environmental dimension into its activities and it is developing diverse programs in this sense: Through the Global Environmental Fund (GEF) UNDP assists 100 countries to combat climate change, reducing the emission of greenhouse gas, without halting its rhythm of growth. Over the last ten years, the resources assigned to finance FMAM/UNDP programs increased to 1,200 million dollars and attracted 1,700 million dollars from other sources. These projects have become a powerful drive to reform national policies.

Along with the United Nations Office to fight against Desertification and Drought, the UNDP assists countries to combat desertification and plan for future action to prevent drought and hunger. The UNDP supports the application of the Protocol of Montreal which protects the earth ozone layer, sponsoring projects in 64 countries through which 5,667 tones of chemical products that exhaust the ozone layer are eliminated annually[24].

World Bank

The World Bank has recognized the environment as one of the key points of its actions redefining its strategy in this direction. The Bank’s concern has evolved from a conception of “not to harm”, towards a proactive action in the promotion of environmental sustainability.

The Bank has developed an assistance program for the environment focused on the encouragement of environmental resource management and improvement of environmental conditions in developing countries. Funding of “green” projects was increased while a number of its portfolio projects have been refused due to their detrimental effects on the environment. Recognizing the link between human rights and environment, the 2000-2001 World Bank Report on World Development[25] measures poverty by virtue of four aspects: opportunity, potentiality, security and capacities. These aspects have multiple determinants, but there is a common factor for all: the sustainability of the environment[26]

“By linking poverty alleviation and sustainable development,

the Bank is focusing on finding ways to ensure that economic

growth does not come at the expense of the world's physical

and ecological systems or the world's poor[27]

World Bank, 2002[28]

World Health Organization

The WHO formulated a global strategy for health and the environment that provides a framework for the fulfillment of three objectives:

Achieve a sustainable basis for health for all; to provide an environment that promotes health; and to make all individuals and organizations aware of their responsibility for health and its environmental basis[29] (Adriana Fabra, 2002) [30]

The World Health Organization, aware of the serious impact of environmental degradation on health, has created jointly with the Pan-American Health Organization, a program focused on children’s environmental health[31] and a World Conference on Environmental Threats to Children’s Health is due to take place this year, organized by the WHO in collaboration with the U.S. National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

World Trade Organization (WTO)

The Marrakech Agreement establishes the World Trade Organization in 1994, it declares, in the first paragraph of its preamble that the state members to the WTO recognize that, “Its relation to the field of commerce and economic growth must be directed in view of improving living standards, [and] ensure full employment... enabling at the same time the very best use of world resources in accordance with the target of sustainable development, aiming at protecting as well as preserving the environment”.[32] (Emphasis added)

It is evident that, towards the mid 1990s, the importance of integrating basic human rights protections and environmental protections in every field of development was understood. Particularly, the area of Foreign Trade has been and continues to be one of the fields that resists considering environmental and human rights issues.

Nevertheless, the negotiations to create the WTO as well as those that are framed in other treaties such as the NAFTA, MERCOSUR, and most recently, the FTAA, address this need in one way or another.

While the real protections achieved in these trade frames are limited. Gradually, there emerge indexes that show that these structures will strengthen their environmental and human rights protection over time. The WTO Annual Ministerial meeting, recently held in Doha shows that, for example, some States are displaying their concern for and recognizing the importance of conducting sustainability assessment of trade. These studies not only analyze the economic impact of trade, but also study the effects of trade on human health, the state of workers in export sectors, apart from looking at the impact of trade on the environment.

Likewise, at Doha it was stated that, no country shall be prohibited from taking measures necessary to protect human, animal, or natural health. In practice, this last commitment could be the most progressive move of the institution from an environmental standpoint. Finally, from the institutional perspective, the WTO encourages cooperation with UNEP and other inter-governmental environmental organizations. The Doha Declaration states that the countries are opened to information exchange between the WTO and the Secretariats of other multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), and to negotiate on the relations between the WTO rules and the trade obligations assumed by the countries in other MEAs. This relationship WTO-MEAs is generating considerable debate in which the importance and primacy of sustainable development in the framework of the WTO is stated once again.

Finally, the Doha Declaration demands the WTO Committee on Trade and Environment to study the effect of environmental policies on the access to the markets, and the environmental labeling of products (eco-labeling). This labeling is of much importance for the protection of human health as it provides the consumer with essential information.

It is worth noting that all the regional trade agreements, such as MERCOSUR, FTAA, NAFTA, and others, take their fundamental basis and alignments from the WTO negotiations, and therefore, the advances being stated in this forum, will undoubtedly influence future trade agreements.

V. ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES: Basic Rights, Environmental Rights

“The primary human right is the right to have rights”[33].

The human rights system is not a rigid legal structure; its norms are widened as new problems arise which put at risk the attainment of a full and decent life. In our era one of the main problems we face is environmental degradation.

Given the complexity and range of the issue, it is not possible, in the scope of this work, to thoroughly measure out the way in which the link human rights-environment plays out in practice. For this reason, we have chosen some particular cases to reflect on, at least partially, the seriousness and depth of this issue.

Basic Rights

Inter Alia the Right to Life and the Right to Health:

The right to life and the right to health, norms of jus cogens, are consecrated universally as fundamental and inalienable rights. They impose on the States duties related to the environment, in the form of omissions, since states shall restrain themselves from taking actions that lead to environmental degradation which puts at risk the life and health of people; as well in the form of action, given that the States shall ensure decent living conditions, implying at least access to clean water, a healthy atmosphere, and adequate food supplies.

The rights to life and health are critically affected by environmental degradation[34].

According to estimates, about 40% of acute infections in the respiratory tract, 90% of cases of diarrhea, 50% of respiratory chronic disorders, and 90% of cases of malaria could be prevented through simple changes in the environment. [35]

The so-called traditional dangers, generally related to the lack of clean water,

Contaminated water and the concomitant of deficient sanitation account for more than 12 million deaths each year. [36]

Waste, atmospheric contamination in closed places,

Air contamination within homes—the soot produced by combustion of timber, dung, cultivation residues and coal used to cook food and heating—affects more than 2,500 million persons, mainly women and girls and, according to estimates, accounts for more than 2,2 million deaths, over 98% of them from developing countries. [37]

propagation of disease vectors,

the felling of tropical woods creates surfaces where rainwater becomes stagnant, leading to the proliferation of mosquitoes. Every year, malaria accounts for more than a million deaths and it produces over 300 million new clinical cases. [38]

To these we can add common modern dangers such as urban atmospheric contamination.

It is estimated that in San Pablo and Rio de Janeiro, air contamination causes 4,000 premature deaths. The medium ozone concentration in Mexico D.F. in 1995 was about 0.15 parts per million, i.e., 10 times higher than the natural atmospheric concentration. [39]

Central America holds the record as the region with the highest pesticide use per year, amounting to 2 kg per person a year. In consequence, the quantity of acute poisoning due to pesticides is also high in the region, often surpassing 6000 cases annually. In Central America, it is estimated that 4 million people involved in agricultural activities are potentially exposed to pesticides.[40]

Vulnerable Groups

Children Inter Alia

Children are particularly vulnerable to environmental problems, largely due to that their nervous, reproductive, and immunologic systems are not fully developed. This, plus the dynamic state of growth in which they live, makes them particularly sensitive to the consequences of environmental degradation.

The contamination of the air, water, food, and soil, and the use of pesticides affect children from industrialized and developing countries more severely.

In some countries, up to 45% of pesticide poisoning cases occur in children. In industrialized regions, major concern exists about chronic pesticide exposure. A large number of children suffer the effects of lead poisoning or play and live near hazardous waste sites. These areas are breeding places of disease vectors add important biological risk factors.[41]

Twenty percent of deaths before the age of five are caused by respiratory diseases, (atmospheric contamination in enclosed places and urban contamination). About two million children under two