Tag Archive for: Urban Development

,

Mining in Andalgalá: we present ourselves as Amicus Curiae before the Supreme Court

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

Together with the ANDHES Foundation, we present ourselves as friends of the court in the framework of the case in which the constitutionality of an ordinance of Andalgalá (Catamarca), which prohibits open-pit mining, is being debated.

Since 2016, the Municipality of Andalgalá has prohibited, through Ordinance No. 029/16, open pit mining and the use of certain hazardous substances. With broad social consensus, this ordinance sought to protect the environment and the water courses in the area.

Since then, the Canadian company “Yamana Gold” through its “Agua Rica” mining project, today the Mara project, which plans to extract minerals in the Andalgalá River Basin, just 17 km from the city center, has judicially questioned the constitutionality of the ordinance. After several pronouncements of the courts, the Supreme Court of the Province of Catamarca finally declared it invalid.

Today the case is pending before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, awaiting a resolution. This resolution will determine the way of life of the Andalgalá community, as it will enable or not the open pit metal extraction of the highly questioned Mara project, which is currently in an advanced exploration stage. Meanwhile, the communities resist daily the actions of authorities and companies in defense of the territory and the environment, putting their lives and physical integrity at risk.

In this context, with the ANDHES Foundation we request participation in the case as “friends of the court”. This modality allows to contribute to the process arguments to solve the judicial case. We believe that the Court must declare the constitutionality of the law and the autonomy of the people of Andalgalá in the defense of their environment and territory must be respected.

Contact

Maráa Laura Carrizo, @lauracarrizo@fundeps.org

,

Mobilization to reject the highway in Punilla

On May 20, we accompanied the Argentina Fair, Eco Casa, Córdoba Environment Assembly, Córdoba Environmental Forum and Córdoba Climate Forum in a call to demand the sanction of the Punilla highway project. The complaint was made within the framework of the last day of the project’s public hearing.

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

The result of the public hearings held via the web was overwhelming. 90% of those who participated will express their rejection. Among some of the fundamentals, it is worth mentioning the one that shows that the project crosses 16 water courses, affecting the water bodies of any water dependent on access to drinking water in the communities. Likewise, if it indicates that it involves the affectation of 172 hectares of native forest -red category-, negatively impacting the functions of the ecosystems and the fauna that inhabits there.

In addition, the Environmental Impact Assessment procedure was carried out with notorious deficiencies, affecting citizen participation, a fundamental requirement to grant any authorization. In addition, in the face of this scenario of rejection by the communities, the national State issued Decree No. 295/2021 on May 3, through which it approves its approval for the construction of the highway. This is less problematic, as the Environmental Impact Assessment process is in the middle of the development process.

The EIA process must consider and review all observations. The rejection of the road was the driver of the exhibitions that were held in the public hearing, and must be evaluated at the time of issuing an administrative act. It is not possible to grant an environmental license due to a social license.

Photo: Tomás Medina

More information

Contact

Juan Bautista López, juanbautistalopez@fundeps.org

,

Citizen participation in check

This Friday, April 9, at 12 noon, the public hearing will begin on the Punilla highway. It will be done through a digital platform and will be broadcast live on YouTube.

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

Within the framework of the project “ALTERNATIVE ROUTE N ° 38 – VARIANT SECTION COSTA AZUL – LA CUMBRE” -punilla highway-, the environment secretary of the Province convened the corresponding public hearing. This stage is mandatory and prior to obtaining the environmental license.

Beyond the technical-environmental objections that the project deserves regarding its environmental impact, whose evaluation may imply the denial (or not) of the environmental license, the procedure selected by the provincial authority to the holding of the public hearing.

Is that the call itself established that to proceed with the registration, it was necessary to have “LEVEL 2” of Digital Citizen -CIDI- or, where appropriate, obtain it. Then, once this procedure was completed, it was possible to register through the “participation” service of said portal. Each and every one of these previous steps required having access to the internet, a device with a camera and even knowledge of technologies.

To participate in the public hearing – which is scheduled to begin today – you must have a device that allows you to access the corresponding “Google Meet” session. This adds other variables that make access to the procedure difficult, since the person interested in participating must not only have a good internet connection -due to the number of people present in the same session- but also with computer knowledge and a device appropriate technology. In addition, given the possible attendance of many people, the administration must adopt a good room management mechanism, trusting that the platform does not collapse due to the number of online participants.

All these requirements for the exercise of the right to public participation, in addition to finding their justification in the pandemic context, are based on the regulatory framework created by Provincial Law No. 10,618 and its Regulatory Decree No. 750/19 for the modernization of the administration. This regulation is what makes possible, based on Art. 8, the possibility of digital audiences.

The requirements designed by the provincial administration for the enjoyment of the right to citizen participation in environmental matters, generates certain questions regarding the validity of the procedure and the consequent administrative act. Participation must be open, inclusive, guaranteeing favorable conditions so that it can be adapted to the characteristics of the population, taking into special consideration those sectors that for one reason or another are in a situation of vulnerability. The way in which the digital public hearing has been implemented seems to move away from these guidelines, generating restrictions that have a direct impact on the enjoyment of the right of access to public participation in environmental matters, particularly of those people who do not have devices, knowledge and necessary infrastructure.

More information

Contact

,

We appeal the rejection of participation as third parties the cause of Potrerillo de Larreta

Together with the group Todos Por Nuestro Arroyos de Alta Gracia, we filed an appeal challenging the decision that rejected participation as interested third parties.

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

During 2018, together with the group Todos Por Nuestro Arroyos, we requested participation as third parties in the cause of Country el Potrerillo de Larreta. Recall that in this debate the legality of the enclosure of the Los Paredones stream by the country, in the city of Alta Gracia.

During the year 2020, the main cause obtained a sentence by the Chamber of Appeals in Civil and Commercial Matters of the Ninth Nomination of the city of Córdoba, allowing the enclosure of the stream. In December of the same year, after a long time without obtaining a resolution, the Civil and Commercial Court of 2nd appointment of Alta Gracia decided to reject the required participation.

In such a situation, we file an appeal requesting that participation in the process be reviewed and admitted. The grounds on which the rejection is based are based on a vision that restricts and contradicts certain rules present in the national legal system, and that at the same time, sets a regressive precedent in terms of access to justice.

Contact

Juan Bautista Lopez, juanbautistalopez@fundeps.org

,

They reject our request for intervention as third parties interested in the case of Potrerillo de Larreta

Together with the social group Todos por Nuestro Arroyos (TxNA) we express our disagreement with the decision of the Civil, Commercial and Family Court of 2nd Nomination of Alta Gracia. Said resolution, notified hours before the start of the judicial fair, denied participation as interested third parties that we requested together with neighbors of the city, in the trial that Potrerillo de Larreta S.A. It started against the province of Córdoba for the removal of the wires, which illegally prevented the passage in the Los Paredones stream.

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

“It is regrettable that our participation has been considered irrelevant, and among the arguments the idea has been taken that we have no reason to feel legitimated to participate in the trial. This case mobilized all of Alta Gracia, who understood that there cannot be more wires in the spaces that belong to all of us, “said Fabiana Marbián, a member of TxNA and a resident of the city.

“It gets worse when the Judiciary took more than two years to respond to neighbors who, with no interest other than protecting the resources that belong to all Altagracians, ask for participation in a trial that involves all of us,” he emphasized. Marbián, while adding: “It is not to believe, but the years continue to pass and from the private neighborhood they continue to achieve their objective, which is to wire a public watercourse.”

From Fundeps we will appeal to the judicial decision, because the rejection seriously affects fundamental rights of citizenship. One of the most affected rights is the denial of the participation of neighbors in a controversy in which access to a stream (subject to the public domain) and the enjoyment of its environmental services are at stake, which goes against the guarantee of access to justice, the right to enjoy effective judicial protection, as well as the enjoyment of the right to the environment.

This rejection not only affects the participation of the institution in this specific case, but also sets a regressive judicial precedent for the entire province in terms of access to justice by civil society. The participation of civil society in this type of process is key to improving judicial activity in matters of public interest and to democratizing judicial debate.

,

Judgment of the Appeals Chamber in favor of Potrerillo de Larreta

On July 15, the Ninth Nomination Chamber of Civil and Commercial Appeals of the city of Córdoba resolved to nullify the first instance ruling and allow the placement of fences in the Los Paredones stream in the town of Alta Gracia. In the same cause, with the group Todos Por Nuestro Arroyos, we request in 2018 to participate as interested third parties.

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

During the month of July of this year, the Chamber of Appeals in Civil and Commercial matters of the 9th nomination issued a judgment in the proceedings entitled “El Potrerillo de Larreta S.A against Province of Córdoba-Ordinary-contentious administrative claim of full jurisdiction-precautionary”. The court decided to annul the judgment of first instance, admitting the demand of the Country Club Potrerillo de Larreta and consequently allowing the enclosure of the Los Paredones stream in that sector corresponding to the undertaking.

In the framework of this cause, together with the group of neighbors Todos por Nuestro Arroyos, we requested in 2018 the participation as interested third parties. The request had and is intended to be able to participate in the judicial process, allowing us to contribute elements that we consider relevant for its resolution. However, as of this date, said request continues without being resolved.

After almost two years have passed, the delay in processing and resolving the incorporation of Fundeps and the group Todos por Nuestro Arroyos in the case constitutes a barrier that restricts adequate access to justice while violating the guarantee of effective judicial protection . While we wait together with the community for acceptance to be part of the process, the case continues with its processing, a second instance having already been resolved and with the possibility of a final resolution, without being able to be heard those who have legitimate interests in participating.

Contact

Juan Bautista Lopez, <juanbautistalopez@fundeps.org>

, , , , ,

LETTER TO THE INTENDENT MARTÍN LLARYORA: We need policies that address the problems of our city

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

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

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

The ten points are summarized in:

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

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

Access the full letter

Contact

Carolina Tamagnini, carotamagnini@fundeps.org

,

We participate in a hearing on climate change before the IACHR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Authors

Valentina Castillo Barnetche

Aranza Ruiz

Contact

Juan Bautista Lopez, juanbautistalopez@fundeps.org

,

We request the intervention as amicus curiae in the Porta Hnos case.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author

Ananda Lavayen

Contact

Juan Bautista Lopez, juanbautistalopez@fundeps.org

,

When in doubt, nature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More information

Author

Juan Bautista Lopez, juanbautistalopez@fundeps.org

,

Revocation of the order to carry out studies on environmental contamination in Porta Hnos.’s case

On February 22, the Federal Court of Appeals of Córdoba, by majority vote, decided to revoke the resolution issued by the Federal Court No. 3 of Córdoba in the context of the Porta Hermanos case. In that resolution, studies were ordered on environmental contamination and possible pathologies present in the vicinity of the plant of Porta Hermanos S.A.

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

The Federal Court of Appeals made the appeal filed by the company Porta Hermanos SA, revoking the ruling by the Federal Court No. 3 in which the case is processed “CRUZ, SILVIA MARCELA AND OTHERS v MINISTERIO DE ENERGÍA Y MINERÍA DE THE NATION s / AMPARO ENVIRONMENTAL “. In this resolution Judge Vaca Narvaja ordered, on the one hand, the Environmental Research Center – Department of Chemistry of the Faculty of Exact Sciences of the National University of La Plata to inform the court the feasibility of carrying out a study on the possible environmental contamination at the Porta plant, and on the other hand, to the Dean of the Faculty of Medical Sciences of the same University in order to evaluate the possibility of carrying out an inspection on 100 people living in the vicinity of the plant to detect possible pathologies .

The majority vote, maintains that the aforementioned resolution violates the principle of procedural consistency since the measures ordered by the judge of first instance, do not correlate with the object of the amparo filed by those affected. Recall that the principle of procedural consistency implies that the court can not go beyond what was requested by the parties or base its decision on facts different from those that have been alleged by the parties. In this case, the Chamber also maintains that, even though the intervening judge is assisted by the powers provided for in Article 32 of Law 25,675 – which refer to a judge with an active role, concerned about the protection of a collective good such as is the environment-, they must be applied with restrictions. According to the court, these powers are limited only to knowledge of the positions of the parties, thus giving primacy to the principle of congruence over such powers.

Given this panorama, it is necessary to make certain precisions:

The vote analyzed, maintains that the purpose of the amparo revolves around elucidating whether the bioethanol plant of the company Porta Hermanos required:

  • Authorization to operate by the Ex Secretariat of Energy of the Nation
  • Conducting the Environmental Impact Assessment procedure before putting it into operation

The principle of congruence, the precautionary principle and the environmental perspective.

First, from the reading of the same resolution, it is clear that the “environmental protection” presented by the neighbors, has as its main object the “cessation of atmospheric environmental pollution” by the bioethanol plant of the company Porta Hermanos SA In this line, it is requested the closure and final closure of the plant attentive to not having complied with the procedure of Environmental Impact Assessment – “lack of legal authorization”. Well, if the claim focuses on the cessation of environmental pollution, it is fully consistent to determine the existence of such a phenomenon. Indeed, it would be impossible to stop a contamination, which in the facts has not been fully proven.

Without prejudice to this, the precautionary principle comes into play since, even in the face of uncertainty, the judge could not postpone effective measures for the protection of the environment. In the resolution analyzed here, the majority vote ignores the claim of the amparistas, which is closely linked to the measures ordered by the Federal Judge, not violating the principle of congruence.

The administrative authorizations can not be permits to pollute.

Second, even when the object of environmental protection is that identified by the Chamber, that is, the need for a legal authorization, it is necessary to consider that what underlies the formal administrative procedures for authorization is the protection of the environment. Thus, the formal permits constitute a presumption of safety of the activity enabled but do not imply a permission to pollute and damage the environment, so that, upon verification of a polluting activity, such presumption must yield.

In other words, the debate on the need for an authorization or not, basically, involves discussing whether such activity harms the environment in a way that would have required the prevention and / or management of damage through the impact assessment procedures environmental (in accordance with the provisions of Art. 11 of Law 25,675). Therefore, even in such an object, the measures ordered by the federal judge of the 1st Instance, are fully congruent.

The preventive role of the courts in environmental processes.

In the third place, the assertion made by the Chamber that the principle of procedural consistency prevails over the powers granted by Art. 32 of Law 25,675 (L.G.A), is questionable, if not erroneous.

In the processes where the environmental issue is debated, because of the well protected, the rights at stake and the particularity of the damage, it is necessary that the traditional procedural rules (read principle of congruence) are redefined from the environmental and human rights perspective. The judge acquires a preventive role and an active role in pursuit of the effective protection of the general interest, being able to adopt the necessary measures and measures (Art. 32 L.G.A). In such a role, the judge must act in favor of the protection of the general environmental interest, which acquires a preeminent value, modifying the traditional rules of the civil process, in order to prevent environmental damage, without falling into the stillness of allowing the pollution and thereby consolidate irreparable environmental damage. Under this pre-eminence, the principle of congruence is subverted, or cedes in favor of environmental protection.

It should be noted that the resolution adopted by the Federal Court of Appeals of Córdoba, is questionable as it erroneously defines the object of environmental protection as merely formal (determine the need for legal authorization), and ignores principles and fundamental rules of Argentine environmental public order. In addition, in this case the resolution revoked simply ordered measures to have more information of the current situation, something that has been the cause of successive public complaints by neighbors in the neighborhoods San Antonio and Inaudi.

It is unfortunate that a formalistic look away from reality prevents having more information, in order to better investigate and evaluate a situation of socio-environmental conflict that has been in our city for years.

More information

Author

Juan Bautista Lopez

  • Contact

María Pérez Alsina, mariaperezalsina@fundeps.org

,

Complaint for illegal environmental activities in Alta Gracia

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

 

Last Thursday, October 19, we made a presentation to the Environmental Police Department denouncing alleged illegal activities developed in the Potrerillo de Larreta Country Club located in the city of Alta Gracia. Apparently, during the last weeks of September and the first weeks of October, large-scale geomorphological injury actions were carried out in the country inn sector in the “Los Paredones” stream; consisting of dredging, deepening and expansion of the reservoir in order to increase the exploitation of the water of the stream by the Country.

They signify a clear violation of the provincial environmental policy law, since in order to carry out this type of works it is necessary to previously complete the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process, foreseen in Annex I, subsection 31 of Law 10.208 , which includes the holding of public hearings prior to the granting of the corresponding environmental license, a procedure that has not been completed in this case.

It is worth remembering that since 2012 the Potrerillo de Larreta Country Club has been involved in a judicial process against the province of Córdoba, for the enclosure of almost 4 km of the same stream restricting free transit to third parties and the use of it by the entire community, mainly alleging security reasons. In this instance, together with the collective “Todos por Nuestros Arroyos” we present an Amicus Curiae invoking the character of public good of the stream and the illegitimacy of the fences, finding the next cause to issue a sentence.

Without prejudice to this, the illicit actions continue and are part of a long-standing problem in Alta Gracia that involves particular interests to the detriment of the fundamental rights of all inhabitants. The enclosure of rivers, streams and lakes of provincial dominion by the owners of the estates adjacent to them, constitutes a clear illegitimate act that violates, among others, the right to free transit, the use, enjoyment and use of public domain waters and the constitutionally recognized human right of access to water.

From FUNDEPS we made this presentation hoping to contribute to an adequate protection of the environment as a collective good and to guarantee the respect of rights of collective incidence over individual rights.

More information

Presentation to protect the environment against individual interests in Alta Gracia | FUNDEPS

Author

Noelia Salvia

Contact

María Pérez Alsina – mariaperezalsina@fundeps.org