business and human rights

• COLOMBIA: ‘The Chiquita case shows it’s possible to hold corporations accountable for human rights abuses’

  CIVICUS discusses a recent court victory that held multinational banana company Chiquita accountable for human rights violations in Colombia with Gabriela Valentín Díaz, a member of the EarthRights International legal team that represented victims in the case.

  After 17 years of litigation, a Florida court recentlyfound Chiquita responsible for funding the Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia (AUC), a paramilitary group responsible for numerous massacres that was declared a terrorist organisation by the US government. The court awarded US$38 million in damages to the families of eight victims involved in the lawsuits. The verdict was an important step forward in civil society’s efforts to hold corporations legally accountable for human rights abuses. Many more cases are expected to follow.

  What wasChiquita found liable for?

  The jury concluded that Chiquita Brands International, a major banana company with farms in Colombia, didn’t act like a ‘reasonable business person’ when it chose to fund the AUC.

  The AUC was a violent, far-right paramilitary group that was active during Colombia’s 50-year civil war. It was known for its many human rights abuses, including killings, massacres, kidnappings and forced displacement. This had a devastating impact on Colombian society, particularly in areas where large companies operated.

  Despite being aware of the AUC’s violent activities, Chiquita regularly paid them for years in exchange for what were described as ‘security services’. Although Chiquita claimed to have been forced to make the payments, the jury concluded that the testimony revealed they were not simply a response to extortion, but were made voluntarily. This financial support contributed to the AUC’s violent actions, resulting in numerous deaths and atrocities, and was found to have contributed to the deaths of the victims represented in the trial.

  Why is this ruling important?

  This ruling has important implications beyond the Chiquita case. For many Colombians, it confirms that Chiquita exploited the civil conflict and exacerbated the violence by financially supporting the AUC. Globally, the verdict serves as a warning that multinational companies can be held accountable for their complicity in human rights abuses, even when those abuses occur outside their home country.

  How should the Colombian justice system respond to similar cases of human rights violations?

  Colombia has taken steps to address crimes committed during its long civil conflict, including the establishment of the Special Jurisdiction for Peace and other transitional justice systems. These efforts aim to establish the truth and provide justice. However, we also support the demands of Colombian civil society that corporate actors should also be held accountable for their role in fuelling social conflict in Colombia.

  To address this, the Colombian justice system should focus on investigating companies that played a role in human rights abuses. If these companies are found guilty of supporting or profiting from violence, they should face the same legal consequences as other perpetrators. This approach would help ensure that justice is comprehensive and includes all responsible parties, not just armed groups and individuals.

  What can be done to hold companies accountable for the human rights impacts of their operations?

  In many countries such as the USA, corporate laws are designed primarily to maximise profits, often at the expense of people and communities. The emphasis on profit can lead to serious harms being ignored or minimised. This must change. Governments around the world must prioritise human rights when regulating business. Rather than letting them hide behind complicated legal tactics, governments should require companies to respect human rights and hold them accountable for any harm they cause.

  International organisations can play a crucial role. They can serve as platforms for bringing cases against companies that violate human rights. By sharing information and building international support, these organisations can help hold these companies to account. Accountability ensures that companies are not allowed to ignore the human impact of their actions in the pursuit of profit.

  ---

  Civic space in Colombia is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with EarthRights International through itswebsite orInstagram page, and follow@EarthRightsIntl and@gpvalentind on Twitter.

• CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY: ‘Solidarity is essential because we face very powerful interests’

  CIVICUS discusses civil society’s advocacy for the European Union’sCorporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) with Brad Adams, Executive Director and founder of Climate Rights International (CRI). CRI is a civil society organisation that focuses on the connections between climate change and human rights, putting pressure on governments and corporations to take action to end abuses. Along with many other organisations, it played a key behind-the-scenes role in the final approval of the CSDDD.

  The CSDDD aims to protect human rights and the environment while tackling climate change. It empowers European courts to hold large companies accountable for practices such as child or forced labour in their supply chains and production, and requires companies to align their business strategies with the Paris Agreement climate goals. It also seeks to improve access to justice and provide remedies for victims, ensuring companies are held accountable for their actions or failures to act.

  What’s the CSDDD and what difference should it make?

  The CSDDD is potentially the most important piece of environmental and climate change legislation in the world. The European Union (EU) is the world’s largest economic bloc, bigger than the USA and China, and when it legislates or issues regulations, it has the power to set global standards. For example, when the EU required Apple to stop changing iPhone chargers every few years, Apple eventuallychanged its global policy to comply with the EU standard and avoid heavy fines.

  The strength of the CSDDD is that it requires companies to adopt and implement climate transition plans in line with theParis Agreement. A key global problem is that companies often claim to be Paris Agreement-compliant but continue business as usual. This directive imposes legally binding human rights and environmental due diligence obligations on large companies, requiring them to identify, mitigate and remediate the environmental and human rights harms they cause in their operations and supply chains. This is a major step forward.

  In addition, the CSDDD establishes financial liability for violations, creating a strong incentive for compliance. Under some conditions, civil society organisations (CSOs) and trade unions will be able to bring claims and hold companies to account. This underlines the crucial role of civil society, as governments often fail to enforce laws, even those they have passed themselves.

  A notable weakness of the directive, however, is its limited scope. It only applies to large companies with over a thousand employees and an annual turnover of more than €450 million (approx. US$480 million). This was meant to exclude small and medium-sized enterprises that say they don’t have the capacity to meet the requirements. As a result, an estimated 65 per cent of companies that could be covered are not.

  Nevertheless, the directive still covers around 50 to 60 per cent of all business activity. Over time, we expect the size of companies covered to be reduced, extending the directive’s reach.

  We hope the CSDDD will lead to better environmental and climate standards worldwide. This directive will require large companies doing business with the EU to meet basic environmental standards in their supply chains and production. If companies must meet these standards to do business with the EU, we expect these internal standards to become global standards, influencing their operations wherever they do business. 

  What role did civil society play in the adoption of the directive?

  Civil society played a crucial role. The directive wouldn’t have been adopted without the persistent efforts of many CSOs to put pressure on states.

  It took many years to get to this point. When the directive began to unravel because of theobjections of the German Free Democratic Party (FDP) and the support of climate sceptic governments such asItaly’s, civil society stepped in. We worked with the Belgian EU presidency, Green parties and supportive states to keep the directive on track and get it adopted.

  Civil society also engaged with large companies that were in favour of the directive, encouraging them to intervene. These companies recognised that while the directive might impose short-term costs, it would ultimately benefit them by raising global standards. They wanted to ensure a level playing field by holding companies from countries with lower standards, such as China and Vietnam, to the same high standards they’d have to comply with. If this works it will be a welcome change from the typical corporate race to the bottom.

  Civil society rescued and advanced this critical piece of legislation by successfully linking supportive companies and governments.

  What concessions were made to get the directive adopted?

  For legislation to be adopted in the EU, it must first be approved by the European Commission and then by the European Parliament. The final step is approval by the European Council of Ministers, an intergovernmental body that under its complicated rules in this case only needed a qualified majority of its 27 members.

  The Council had given its provisional approval, but at the final stage the FDP withdrew its support. This is a small economically neoliberal party that is a minor part of theGermancoalition government but may have thought it could use its stance to gain an electoral advantage. Without telling the main coalition parties it apparently contacted parties in other member states and urged them to withdraw their support. Enough did so to raise doubts about whether the required qualified majority could still be achieved. So the CSDDD was temporarily withdrawn to avoid defeat. With the help of other European CSOs and the Belgian presidency, we worked to reassemble a group large enough to achieve the qualified majority.

  Concessions made to secure this majority included raising the employee and turnover thresholds that companies had to meet to be covered by the directive. This helped overcome the objections of those concerned about potential impacts on small and medium-sized enterprises.

  While the final text wasn’t exactly what we’d hoped for, it was still a significant victory. For the first time, it sets out basic principles and standards covering virtually all major multinational companies involved in global trade. Almost every global trading company you can think of will be covered by the CSDDD.

  We expect these companies to put pressure on the EU to amend the law to include those not currently covered by the CSDDD, creating a business consensus to extend its reach so companies won’t be able to compete with lower prices simply because they aren’t held to the same standards.

  Overall, it’s not enough of what’s needed, but it’s a big step in the right direction.

  What are the next steps?

  The provisions of the CSDDD will be implemented gradually, giving companies time to adjust their operations.

  We’ll have to wait and see what happens with thenew European Parliament and how supportive it is of climate policy. Although the Greens lost many seats, there’s still a majority of political parties that recognise the seriousness of climate change. The key question is whether they believe it requires urgent action and whether they will move quickly to implement it.

  We’ll continue to campaign for this directive alongside partner CSOs. We’ll engage in discussions with the Commission and members of parliament to explore ways to strengthen this legislation over time. However, it’s likely to be several years before the EU considers amending and improving this directive. In the meantime, our primary focus will be on ensuring companies comply with the requirements of the new law.

  How else is CRI working to hold corporations accountable?

  We’ve been working on Mexico’s avocado industry, which is responsible for deforestation, water theft from local communities and intimidation and violence against Indigenous communities and civil society activists. Given that 80 per cent of avocados grown in Mexico are exported to the USA, we felt a responsibility to address this issue.

  Thanks to the cooperation of many local organisations and activists who remained anonymous for security reasons, we published ourreport last November. We also approached Mexican and US companies with our findings and pressed the Mexican and US governments to create a mandatory deforestation-free certification process for the sale of avocados. We spoke to federal agencies in both countries. We worked with journalists at the New York Times, which published a key full-pagestory, and with members of the US Senate, who sent a key letter to the US government. We held webinars with civil society in Mexico. In February, as a result of our pressure, both governmentsannounced a ban on the sale of avocados grown in illegally deforested areas. Indigenous communities had been complaining about this for years, and we were finally able to make their voices heard.

  Solidarity was essential because we faced very powerful interests, including big companies with huge investments and drug cartels laundering money through the avocado industry. But we were still able to reach an agreement to end these harmful practices.

  Get in touch with CRI through itswebsite orFacebook andInstagram pages, and follow@ClimateRights on Twitter. And get in touch with Brad Adams throughLinkedIn.

• GUATEMALA: ‘Judicial harassment and criminal prosecution have wearing effects’

  On World Press Freedom Day, CIVICUS speaks with Carlos Ernesto Choc, a Q’eqchi’ Mayan journalist with almost two decades of experience, about the criminalisation of journalism and the media in Guatemala.

  What are the conditions for journalists in Guatemala?

  The conditions for the practice of journalism in Guatemala are quite difficult. We face criminal prosecution by the Public Prosecutor’s Office and threats from various sources, including public officials that journalists are questioning or investigating. Defamation campaigns against journalists are also very concerning.

  The internet and social media are full of trolls who send threatening and defamatory messages. They discredit journalistic work and attacks naturally follow. These even come from the state, and particularly from public security agencies. The National Civil Police attack the media and journalists both in the context of demonstrations and at other times and places where they do not want coverage of events in order to preserve impunity for crimes or violations of rights perpetrated on the ground.

  Since 2015, aggressions against the press have only escalated. Now as well as being criminally prosecuted, judicially harassed, threatened, intimidated and vilified, you can be thrown into prison. To be able to do this, they accuse you of charges that are normally used to fight organised crime, such as illicit association, as in my case, or money laundering, as in the case of my colleague Rubén Zamora. In other words, we are accused of being criminals and prosecuted under accusations of having links to organised crime, leading land invasions or instigating crime. These are clearly fabricated accusations, so we are baselessly, illegally detained. They ultimately have no way of proving their accusations, but in the meantime you remain subject to lengthy criminal proceedings.

  While all journalists are vulnerable in this country right now, those of us who investigate environmental aggression, human rights violations and issues related to drug trafficking and corruption are particularly vulnerable. These are really complicated issues and some investigate them anonymously because many have been murdered, the most recent being Eduardo Mendizabal, just over a month ago.

  The situation is getting more complicated by the day and some community journalists have chosen to emigrate and quit journalism. It is sad to see colleagues leave, and under the current government there have been more and more of them. I don’t see myself in exile, but I view this as an option of last resort.

  What is your situation after the criminalisation you have experienced?

  Mine has been a case of judicial persecution that has been used to attempt to silence me. It started in 2017 when I was investigating the pollution of Lake Izabal. I was documenting protests by fishers against mining and I captured the exact moment when a protester was killed by shots fired by the National Civil Police. The accusation against me came from the mining company, Solway Investment Group – a Russian-owned company based in Switzerland. In August 2017, a warrant for my arrest was issued. One hearing after another was postponed so only in January 2019 could I finally give testimony before the court, as a result of which I was handed an alternative measure to prison.

  When you have an alternative measure to imprisonment you are free under certain conditions: you are forced to visit the Public Prosecutor’s Office every 30 days to sign in and forbidden to be in any place where alcoholic drinks are sold, among other things. The security forces, the police, the authorities are watching where you are and waiting for you to commit a breach to be able to prosecute you. I see these alternative measures as forms of punishment that imply restrictions and limitations on your right to inform and be informed.

  In January 2022, I was criminally prosecuted again, under accusations by the National Civil Police of instigating violence during a protest by Indigenous communities in Izabal against the country’s largest active open-pit mine, owned by Solway’s subsidiary Compañía Guatemalteca de Níquel. Thirteen police officers accused me of having physically assaulted them, when all I was doing was documenting the moment when security forces repressed people with teargas. Since then I could not continue doing my job as a journalist, nor move around freely, until my lawyers managed to prove to the judge that I really am a journalist and not a criminal. In September the charges against me were dropped. It has been very exhausting: judicial harassment and criminal prosecution have wearing effects.

  What strategies have journalists adopted to be able to continue working?

  Strategies to break through censorship are renewed every day and are often focused on both physical and digital security, particularly concerning the security of documents and files. Local, national and international networking among journalists and alternative and independent media is also very important.

  Such networks have made possible works such as Green Blood, published in 2019, and Mining Secrets, published in 2022. Both were led by Forbidden Stories, an organisation based in France that supports the publication of the work of journalists facing threats, criminalisation and violence in their countries. Green Blood was the result of research conducted in three countries on three continents: Guatemala, India and Tanzania, and looks into the mining industry’s tactics to hinder journalistic work and criminalise those who oppose its practices. Mining Secrets arose from the leak of a huge amount of Solway’s internal files concerning the operation of its Fénix mining project in Izabal. A consortium of 20 media outlets from 15 countries around the world carried out an investigation, with information corroborated by 65 journalists, including the Prensa Comunitaria team I was part of.

  It is all about finding a way to continue doing the work you are doing. Like many others, I do journalism out of passion and conviction. I don’t expect a prize or international recognition. I know that what I am doing is going to help my community and society in general. I believe that shedding light on environmental damage and human rights violations is very important.

  What kind of support do journalists and community media in Guatemala currently receive, and what additional support would they need?

  We receive support mainly in the form of accompaniment: legal accompaniment, accompaniment from human rights organisations and accompaniment from communities and community authorities who support our work.

  This is very important, but much more is needed. A difficulty that criminalised or at-risk journalists experience is that of surviving economically and supporting their families, which is why economic support is important. The same goes for health support, because there are times when, due to all you are going through, your body no longer responds. Finally, it is key to provide opportunities for exchange with other journalist colleagues. It helps a lot to learn about the experiences of others.

  ---

  Civic space in Guatemala is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Follow@CarlosErnesto_C on Twitter.

• INDIA: ‘We have achieved a historic labour rights win for female Dalit workers’

  CIVICUS speaks about a recent labour rights victory in India’s garment industry with Jeeva M, General Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Textile and Common Labour Union (TTCU).

  TTCU is a women-led independent and majority Dalit trade union of textile workers that represents 11,000 female workers in Tamil Nadu, India. Jeeva, who hails from the Dalit community, has worked for more than five years in the Tamil Nadu textile industry, including at Eastman Exports. She is a founding member of TTCU and has led struggles for decent work and violence-free workplaces in the garment industry for more than a decade.

  What is the Dindigul Agreement, and how significant is it?

  The Dindigul Agreement was signed in April 2021 by TTCU and Eastman Exports, one of the largest textile producers in India, which supplies knitwear, apparel and accessories to major global clothing brands. Its aim is to end caste-based and gender-based violence and harassment (GBVH) at Eastman factories and spinning mills in Dindigul, a city in India’s Tamil Nadu state.

  This is a historic labour rights win for around 5,000 mostly female Dalit workers, who are placed at the bottom of India’s caste system.

  The Dindigul Agreement includes an enforceable brand agreement (EBA), a type of legally binding agreement in which multinational companies commit to use their supply chain relationships to support a worker-led or union-led programme at particular factories or worksites. In this case, TTCU, the Asia Floor Wage Alliance (AFWA) and Global Labour Justice-International Labour Rights Forum (GLJ-ILRF) have signed an EBA with the multinational fashion company H&M, which requires H&M to support and enforce the Dindigul Agreement. If Eastman Exports violates its commitments, H&M must take steps to penalise the company, including by reducing business, until it comes into compliance.

  This agreement is the first of its kind in India, the only EBA to cover spinning mills and the first to include explicit protections against caste-based discrimination, a problem that intensified during the pandemic.

  The Dindigul Agreement is in line with the International Labour Organization’s Convention 190 concerning the elimination of violence and harassment in the workplace. It creates structures that will empower female workers, supported by their union, to monitor and seek redress for GBVH. It also provides a new model for brands, suppliers and trade unions to cooperate to prevent and respond to GBVH in garment supply chains.

  What tipped the balance in favour of the agreement after so many years of efforts?

  Civil society has advocated for better working conditions for Dalit workers for many years, but it was not until the murder of Jeyasre Kathiravel, a Dalit woman garment worker and member of TTCU, that we succeeded in addressing the extreme problems of GBVH pervasive in this industry. The killing of Jeyasre by her supervisor in January 2021 prompted TTCU to shed light on the situation at the factory where she was killed.

  In response, TTCU, AFWA and GLJ-ILRF formed a unique partnership and launched the #JusticeforJeyasre campaign in India and other Asian countries as well as in Europe and the USA. Over 90 international unions, labour groups and women’s rights organisations joined to urge international brands and Eastman Exports to sign a binding agreement to end GBVH.

  A year-long campaign ensued, including an international vigil for Jeyasre held across 33 countries and an 11-city speaking tour across the USA to raise awareness about her case and the need to address GBVH in global supply chains. This enabled the civil society coalition to lead the negotiations that concluded with the historic agreement.

  What other challenges do Dalit workers face in India, and what needs to be done to improve their situations?

  Caste discrimination permeates every aspect of society. Due to its systemic nature, workplaces and supply chains are likely to be affected by it unless special measures to counter it are put in place.

  For instance, Dalit workers experience poorer working conditions than non-Dalits, including longer working hours, sexual harassment, lower wages, dirtier or more hazardous tasks and abusive language and gestures. We also face discrimination at the hiring stage – for instance, qualified applicants from Dalit communities are not considered for skilled jobs – and encounter discrimination in accessing services and utilities offered by the employer, such as housing, healthcare and education and training.

  With approximately 80 per cent of the bonded workforce coming from the Dalit community, strong measures need to be put in place to address bonded or forced labour and to ensure that employment in this sector is not forced.

  Important measures to advance Dalit workers’ labour rights include ensuring the freedom of association and collective bargaining, improving working conditions, paying living wages and implementing binding agreements such as the Dindigul Agreement to address caste-based discrimination and GBVH in sectors where the workforce is mostly made up of Dalit women.

  What’s next for the civil society groups involved in the Dindigul Agreement?

  Through the campaign and negotiation process, TTCU built strong forward momentum and gained respect from the factory and brands. TTCU, AFWA and GLJ-ILRF have built a powerful coalition of unions, women’s rights groups and Dalit rights advocates, among others. Now the agreements have been signed, we need to keep that momentum. We will continue to keep our allies engaged in the implementation phase and as we work to drive industry-wide change.

  We see the Dindigul Agreement as part of a regional movement against GBVH in garment supply chains. We plan to use it as a model for organising against GBVH across the industry and the region. We are already calling on more brands to join this agreement and working with them to expand it. There will surely be challenges, but we are confident we will overcome them.

  Civic space in India is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
  Get in touch with AFWA through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@asia_floorwage,@tamil_labour and@GLJhub on Twitter. 

• MEXICO: ‘When climate activism threatens powerful interests, it is labelled on the same level as terrorists and drug traffickers’

  CIVICUS speaks about the role of civil society and its expectations for the upcoming COP28 climate summit with María Reyes, a young human rights and environmental activist from the Mexican state of Puebla.

  María is part of the Indigenous Figures (Futuros Indígenas) collective, made up of peoples, including young people, from Mexico and Central America. She participates in the global south division of Fridays for Future (FFF), an organisation that fights for environmental justice and advocates for action in the face of the climate emergency.

  What are Mexico’s main environmental problems?

  Generally speaking, Mexico is very vulnerable to the climate crisis. Water scarcity is a central issue, partly caused by droughts, but also by infrastructure problems, as many people do not have access to piped drinking water, and by very poor distribution and overexploitation of aquifers by private companies. If we add to the existing drought the fact that in many communities there are companies that obtain concessions through non-legal and non-transparent means and appropriate the little water that is left, the situation for people becomes unbearable.

  Mexico is one of the most dangerous countries to be an activist and environmental defender. In the southeast of Mexico there is a series of transnational extractive megaprojects, such as the Interoceanic Corridor and the ‘Mayan Train’, which threaten the environment through logging and water extraction, and displace wildlife, expropriate territories and resources, harm people and commit human rights violations. Local communities, particularly Indigenous communities, are criminalised when they oppose these megaprojects that are imposed on their territories without any consultation and without their consent or through the staging of rigged consultations.

• PERU: ‘Environmental regulations were relaxed, when they should have been strengthened’

  CIVICUS discusses the recent oil spill off the coast of Lima, Peru, with Juan Carlos Sueiro, Director of Fisheries at Oceana, the world’s largest international organisation dedicated to protecting and restoring the world’s oceans. Founded in 2001, Oceana focuses its work on restoring fisheries, promoting clean energy and establishing protected marine areas.

  Has anyone been held responsible for the oil spill off the coast of Lima?

  The oil spill, caused by the Spanish oil company Repsol, happened on 15 January 2022. Due to its magnitude and visibility, it was the worst ecological disaster in Peru’s recent history. It occurred in an artisanal fishing zone, with protected areas and important seasonal economic activity. It is the largest spill we have ever had.

  The spill happened because of the high tides caused by the eruption of the Tonga submarine volcano, which affected the process of unloading oil from a Repsol oil tanker to the La Pampilla refinery. The question is: how is it possible that the company only became aware of the magnitude of the spill the next day? The company’s negligence magnified the consequences of this spill.

  Unfortunately, we have seen little progress in terms of Repsol taking responsibility for recovering the ecosystem. Even the exact volume of oil spilled is not known with any certainty. The company’s reaction was very slow, which is worrying because the first 24 hours following this kind of accident are key, as the oil film becomes very thin and expands a lot. It was only almost 20 days later that more sophisticated equipment was brought in to address the problem.

  Overall there is not enough transparency. In this case, the contingency plan was not implemented. The activities currently underway are supposed to be the product of a plan, but neither the company’s commitments nor the contents of that plan have been made public. The area between Ancón and Chancay was heavily impacted on by the spill, and there is no bay there, only cliffs and water. It is visible how little has been done in the way of recovery.

  There is also little transparency in the investigation. It is still not clear whether Repsol has handed over the equipment that was underwater in order to investigate and determine what happened on the day of the spill.

  This lack of transparency is symptomatic of the way the Peruvian state operates. This is similar to what happened when the pandemic broke out and we ‘discovered’ that we had an absolutely precarious health system, which was clearly not up to the task. In this case, we have environmental structures, legislation and procedures on paper, but not in reality. The opacity of information is intended to hide this discrepancy.

  For us it is very clear: Repsol must publicly assume clearly defined responsibilities.

  What have been the environmental and economic impacts of the spill?

  There has been great environmental damage. The area affected by the spill includes several protected natural areas: the Ancón Reserved Zone, the Guaneras Islands and the Punta Salinas Reserved Zone. The spill has impacted on marine fauna, affecting animals such as sea lions, otters, penguins and birds. Many have been stained with oil and their lives are at risk. Oceana is currently surveying this damage, as well as the additional damage caused by the company’s delayed reaction.

  For communities in the area, the greatest concern is economic. These are mostly low-income people engaged in artisanal fishing. Beyond individual and immediate impacts – for example, for those who had invested in a seasonal business just before the spill – the consequences are collective and long-term. It is now impossible to fish in Ancón or Chancay, and it is difficult to know when it will be possible to do so, because oil has a much longer degradation time when it settles on the seabed. The fishermen and all the workers involved in processing and distribution logistics are also concerned about the variation in fish prices and the drop in demand.

  We have run a calculation of the economic worth of coastal fisheries in these places to give us an idea of the economic loss. We also believe that there is an important impact on tourist activity: for the nine million inhabitants of the capital, Lima, and the three million living a little further north, these beaches are the closest place to spend the summer, and the spill has cut short the summer season, which runs from January to April. We have already warned the local municipalities that they must estimate the damage caused to tourism.

  How has civil society responded?

  We have all reacted with concern and a great interest in helping others. We have seen many volunteers helping to clean up the beaches, as well as experts and academics contributing within their areas of expertise.

  However, volunteer work has limitations because in order to rescue marine wildlife from the damage caused by oil, certain procedures and products must be used to properly remove oil from an animal’s plumage or skin. Because of this, interest in helping usually does not translate into 100 per cent successful results.

  Moreover, as this is the first time we have faced a disaster of this magnitude, Peru does not have all the expertise it needs. There is post-disaster expertise and experience elsewhere; it is necessary to bring it in. It would also be important to deepen the discussion about the energy mix we have and how to change it by turning towards the renewable resources that are available to us.

  How can private companies be called to account and contribute to preventing future disasters?

  Lack of accountability is a longstanding concern for the communities in these areas, and the fact that their demands have been systematically ignored is a symptom of Peru’s strong centralism. Artisanal fishermen in the north have been warning about this situation for several years and there has been no meaningful response. Oil extraction in Peru dates back to the 19th century; Peru had the first oilwell in South America. In the 1950s and 1960s, offshore platforms were installed, which are at the root of the spills and leaks that fishers complain about. There are also complaints about what happens in the transportation process, which has much greater implications.

  This situation has encouraged civil society to prioritise the search for solutions. For almost a decade, environmental requirements have been reduced in Peru; it is necessary to walk back that path. Peru is engaged in fishing, mining and other activities for which regulations have been relaxed, when they should have been strengthened. The very low environmental capacity of the state and the poor response of companies to disasters clearly shows their inadequacy. Peru suffers from a major crisis of governance and respect for the rule of law. 

  The possibility of another spill is always present. It is necessary to minimise the likelihood of it happening, and to ensure that when it does, it has the least possible impact in terms of magnitude, frequency and consequences. To do this we have to start by not losing sight of who is responsible for this disaster and the consequences of their irresponsible action.

  Civic space in Peru is rated ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
  Get in touch with Oceana through itswebsite or itsFacebook,Instagram andTik Tok accounts, and follow@Oceana_Peru and@SueiroJC on Twitter.