Note: This site looks much better on an standard compliant browser, however, the site content is accessible with any device connected to the Internet.
Go directly to the page content.
This web site was designed in accordance with
international norms on accesibility for persons with disabilities.
Last Update: July 16, 2008
Cambiar a Versión en Español
- Paper Pulp Mills - Uruguay
- Corporate Accountability and Human Rights
- Climate Change and Human Rights
CAO does not agree with the opinion that there will be no impact on the Argentine side
Friday 11 of November 2005 – The CAO Ombudsman officially published its first report after visiting the area where the proposed paper pulp mills on the border of Argentina and Uruguay, supporting many of the concerns presented by CEDHA’s on behalf of almost 40 000 people who had signed the petiticion against the mills in September. The report confirmed that the Environmental Impact Statements (EIAs) “failed to sufficiently take into account the concerns of those potentially affected” and that it “did not offer sufficient evidence that potential impacts on tourism and agriculture had been properly considered”. Furthermore, “the EIAs presented little evidence [which indicated that] those affected on the Argentinian side had been consulted”. CAO considered that in virtue of the magnitude of the projects and their location the consultation and participation of those potentially affected on the Argentinean side is essencial.
The CAO report indicated the EIAs had not considered the “the social and environmental consequences” of the large eucalypt plantations which were established to supply the raw materials to the mills.
The CAO recommends an improvement in consultation and publicity in the EIA process. These two aspects are to remain independent in the process and must allow “every type of formal objection before the projects are considered by the director of the bank”. Additionally, the CAO suggests that the new Cumulative Impact Statement (CIS) that is currently being produced, include credible responses to concerns about the social and economic costs caused by the proposed plants. Furthermore, the CIS must incorporate public consultation in its design and implementation, whilst ensuring the participation of independent experts in turn promoting more public involvement. The report conclusively states that the International Finance Corporation (IFC) should undertake additional measures to ensure the credibility and legitimacy of the process as “without efforts that establish confidence and address questions of credibility, it will be of no help to anybody.”
Amongst other things the CAO recommends the Terms of Reference of the CIS and concrete actions to drive the CIS. Additionally, the CAO asks that the IFC offers a clear description of the impacts faced by those affected taking into account the laws of both countries in view of international environmental treaties and agreements. The report concludes that the CAO will undertake an audit of IFC and MIGA’s compliance with their own policies of disclosure.
The paper companies of ENCE (Spain) and BOTNIA (Finland) are two of the largest in the world, and both have a history of environmental contamination, strong opposition by neighbouring communities to their plants as well as serious problems with the law. However, they have managed to convince the government of Uruguay to open its doors to the biggest investment in the country’s history: a project of more than 1.8 million dollars. Both companies will use second-rate technology for the production of pulp. The use of a high concentration of chlorine and other chemicals necessary for this type of production results in the discharge of carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide and chlorine dioxide, causing the absorption of dioxins and organic halogens into water and the atmosphere. In addition, the plants will deposit a worrying amount of lead, cadmium, chromium and arsenic into the surrounding soil and water. All of these metals have been proven to cause genetic disorders, cancer, respiritory problems and skin diseases.
The CAO Ombudsman’s office is the only independent regulatory mechanism of the International Finance Corporation and Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, both are branches of the World Bank. The mandate of the CAO is to advise the president of the World Bank by providing an objective, constructive and fair framework to address the complaints of affected communities in order to improve social and economic outcomes of projects funded by CFI and MIGA.
Information about the CAO in PDF (English).
More Information
For more information please contact:
Center for Human Rights and Environment (CEDHA)
00 54 351 425-6278; cel. 00 54 9 351 625-3290
Center for Human Rights and Environment (CEDHA)
00 54 3541 494 162; cel. 00 54 9 351 625-3297
