Peru's Indigenous leaders raise concerns over oil and gas projects at a human rights hearing
BOGOTA, Colombia (AP) — Indigenous leaders from the Peruvian Amazon who are calling for the government to stop oil and gas projects in their territory took their case to an international human rights body on Tuesday.
The leaders presented evidence of the impact of oil and gas exploration at a hearing before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. They said the projects violate Indigenous rights by threatening their land, health and food security and are in breach of international obligations that require Indigenous groups to be consulted.
The Indigenous leaders are represented by the Interethnic Association for the Development of the Peruvian Rainforest, or AIDESEP. The group argues that the projects also pose risks to uncontacted Indigenous groups and also noted specific impact on Indigenous women.
During the meeting, the Peruvian government said it is a democratic state which respects law and guarantees human rights to all its citizens and that it is committed to strengthening it.
But Julio Cusurichi Palacios, a member of AIDESEP's Board of Directors from the Madre de Dios region of the Amazon said the government "have stated things that are not in accordance with what is happening in reality."
'The rights of Indigenous peoples are not being respected, the contamination of our rivers and territories continues, there are threats to uncontacted Indigenous Peoples, more regulations that make environmental standards more flexible, and oil and gas lots continue to be promoted,' he told The Associated Press after the hearing.
The government denied most of the claims made by the Indigenous groups and did not reply to AP's requests for comment.
Recent reports have found that the Peruvian government continues to auction Indigenous lands for oil and gas exploration. Approximately 75% of the Peruvian Amazon — home to 21 Indigenous groups — is covered by oil and gas concessions, many of which overlap with Indigenous territories, according to the International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs.
'I believe this situation has been getting increasingly worse," Cesar Ipenza, an environmental lawyer who took part in the hearing, told AP. 'There's a policy of promoting extractive activities in highly vulnerable areas, especially in the Amazon.'
He added that the impact on the environment and the lack of communication with Indigenous groups is already evident, but 'the Peruvian state claims that everything is fine and that there are no problems with oil and gas activities.'
The commission has asked the Peruvian government to provide written responses to the claims, focusing on their protocols for handling oil spills and supporting affected communities. Joint data from several Peruvian organizations has documented 831 oil spills in the Peruvian Amazon.
There are at least 20 uncontacted tribes in Peru that live in the most remote, uncontacted regions of the Amazon rainforest, according to Survival International, an advocacy group for Indigenous peoples.
Survival International told AP the recent appearance of dozens of uncontacted Mashco-Piro people near logging concessions inside their territory, and subsequent deadly encounters between logging workers and the Indigenous people, underline just how vulnerable these groups have become.
'Because they've failed to get redress in Peru, Indigenous organizations there have turned to international fora like the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights,' said Teresa Mayo, Peru researcher for Survival International.
'They want the Commission to force Peru to abide by the international laws and treaties it's signed up to, rather than ignore those aspects which it finds inconvenient.'
—
The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ivison: The future is nuclear but we need pipelines too
This week, John Ivison discussed the Carney government's plans for nation-building projects with Dr. Heather Exner-Pirot, a senior advisor for the Business Council of Canada. Ivison asked whether asking premiers to submit projects deemed to be in the national interest will mean we are at risk of pursuing white elephants that are not feasible or uneconomic. 'The tone has markedly improved from the last Liberal government, so there is some optimism,' she said. 'There is a sense that the federal government will be a partner in building things, where, for a long time, we thought they were blocking our ability to build things. So it's a great start but there's only so long that you can have a honeymoon period before things have to happen. We actually have to see some action. And we know that Liberal governments are very good at rhetoric and not so great at implementation.' She said her concern is that projects are being submitted by governments and then projects deemed 'nation-building' are being selected by the federal government. 'The direction it's going is a little concerning, in that they want to have a short list of nation-building projects and they will determine if it's nation building and use the public purse to fund them in cases where the private sector will not step up. 'There may be a handful where that's justified. There's obviously a role for governments to build infrastructure. But the low-hanging fruit is obviously to improve our regulatory competitiveness. We have very restrictive, very burdensome regulatory processes. There are a lot of projects that proponents want to do on their own, without government help, if the regulation was better, if we had better tax competitiveness with our competitors. And so I will tolerate a handful of these nation building projects, if they make sense from a business side. But at the end of the day, we're going to need to see the regulations improved and streamlined.' Exner-Pirot said that Mark Carney's goal of a two-year approval process is a 'great target' '(But) we should walk before we run. For some of these things, three years also look pretty good. Two years is certainly feasible if we have good processes and good relations with Indigenous partners. The Conservatives were talking about a six months (approval process) and that just didn't seem feasible to me – that you would never be able to fulfill your duty to consult and accommodate in such a timeline. So two years is ambitious, but doable and we should reach for it.' She pointed out that Canada has to be regulatory and tax competitive with jurisdictions like Texas. 'We would like to bring some of that capital back home. But at the end of the day, investors are going to make those decisions based on the return that they get. Let's make sure that our tax system is competitive so that capital actually wants to choose Canada. One sector where Exner-Pirot is extremely bullish is nuclear power generation using small modular nuclear reactors. This is the one area where I just think: 'Yes, this is a nation building project'. We should lead on SMRs. And there's so many strategic reasons for Canada. One is that we have the uranium source. (We are) the world's number two exporter and number two producer of uranium. We have phenomenal deposits in northern Saskatchewan and in Nunavut. We could dominate the supply chain and the technology. We are building the first SMR in the G7. It has taken some public money to get there. But being the first mover really does accord you some benefits as you try to sell these models in the future. So where can we go next? Nuclear really has the potential if you get the cost curve down. It's a baseload clean energy that needs very little land and very little material inputs. In 100 years, do I think we'll be doing mostly nuclear? Yes, I honestly do.' On specific projects, Ivison asked if a bitumen pipeline should be a priority. '(Alberta premier) Danielle Smith has said it, and my analysis suggests it's absolutely true: There is nothing that will change the economic growth, the GDP, the productivity per capita in this country as much as a bitumen pipeline. We finally added Trans Mountain about a year ago. That's at 90 per cent utilization right now in one year. Our producers filled it fast, so there's clearly demand. We're seeing most of that demand come from Asia, so there is strong demand in global markets for Canadian heavy oil. But it is concerning that we have added this pipeline and we're already running out of egress. So there is an urgency from the producers that we need to start thinking about the next pipeline. And I don't think we're going to get Northern Gateway in two years. If everything went well, probably four years. And that's why we have to start planning for (the next one) now,' she said. Exner-Pirot said whichever pipeline plan comes forward will require the B.C. government to revisit its opposition to tanker traffic on the West Coast. 'I'm finding this hard to understand because B.C. has actually done some constructive and progressive things on the economic development side since Trump was inaugurated. (Premier Dave) Eby has almost been the most vocal about wanting the elbows up. He said in February that if we don't sell Canadian oil and gas, they will just get it from places like Venezuela. I thought: 'Wow, this guy has had a light bulb moment'. To hear (his support for the tanker ban) two and a half months later is quite disappointing. Now a lot of this is federal jurisdiction, so while we want the feds to get out of the way, (it is different) on inter-provincial pipelines, because that is clearly federal jurisdiction. We know from Trans Mountain when B.C., if you recall, said: 'We will use every tool in the toolbox to stop this project'. And they did. But it wasn't their right. The feds can overturn the oil tanker ban. That's their jurisdiction. But what proponent really wants to step into a situation where a provincial government is going to use every tool in the toolbox to stop your project? It's obviously not bullish for investment to have this kind of political disagreement on the ground.' Ivison asked if the idea of a 'grand bargain' between Alberta and Ottawa on decarbonizing bitumen before it is transported to the West Coast by pipeline is a viable option. 'It is feasible. The industry itself has proposed carbon capture and also using some solvents to reduce emissions. In the last 11 years, they have actually reduced carbon intensity emissions per barrel by 30 per cent. So they are doing the work. A lot of the carbon comes from natural gas input to heat the bitumen. That's an expense. There's every reason why they would rather not have to pay that kind of money. 'Right now, the oil sands, on a life cycle basis, is only about 1-3 per cent higher emissions than the global average barrel, the average crude. But if we did this carbon capture, if we did some of the solvent innovations that they're using, it would actually be below the global average on a life cycle basis. So there is a grand bargain to be had. The industry itself has been advocating it. We're very competitive on an economic basis. We want to be competitive on a carbon basis. 'What Danielle Smith is saying is: 'Where's the money going to come from to spend probably $20 billion on these (carbon capture) technologies? If you know you're going to get another pipeline and you can increase your production and fill it with a million barrels a day, well, now there's more revenue coming in and there's a justification. (But) if all your profits have to be driven into carbon capture, you're just not going to get any investment. All of this is cost, none of this is profit and they still have to have a certain level of return from the investors or the investors will just take off.' Moving east across Canada,, Exner-Pirot has been skeptical about Arctic ports being commercially viable. She noted that the feds and the province of Manitoba have spent more than half a billion dollars on the port of Churchill and it's still not attracting shippers and investors, while the Northwest Territories is trying to push the idea of an 'Arctic Security Corridor' that runs between Alberta and Gray's Bay in Nunavut, via Yellowknife. Both ports are impacted by a short shipping season because of sea ice. 'It's a terrible idea for oil and a very bad idea for liquefied natural gas,' she said. 'You will never get a return on your investment. We do want northern development. We do want those regions to prosper at a local level. (But) this is not the thing that's going to grow our GDP. This is not the thing that's going to help Canada diversify its exports away. 'A port in Churchill and a port in Gray's Bay can be useful for helping local mining development happen. That's important for jobs, for taxes, for royalties, for those communities' economic health. So there's a reason it's a public good to provide some basic infrastructure, basic transportation access for the people that live there. Critical minerals are a very different thing from oil. You can mine, you can produce all year and stockpile it, and then in that short shipping season you can ship it out. It's not very expensive just to have it sitting there while the shipping season is closed.' Exner-Pirot said the signs are positive that Canada will finally get its act together and overcome the barriers to economic development because the alternative is stagnation. 'If we return to our complacency after what we've seen and what we've gone through, then God help this country. The conversation right now, again, is focusing on a few projects. I'll be tolerant of this, maybe for a handful of projects and for a handful of months. But (we must) improve our regulatory systems, especially at the federal level. That is where we need to see movement. You can't bring in new people at the rate we bring in new people, and you can't be dependent on China at the rate that we're dependent on China. That cannot keep going on,' she said. John Ivison: Premiers seem delighted just to finally be meeting with a grown-up PM John Ivison: The first Carney spending numbers are as bad as Trudeau's Get more deep-dive National Post political coverage and analysis in your inbox with the Political Hack newsletter, where Ottawa bureau chief Stuart Thomson and political analyst Tasha Kheiriddin get at what's really going on behind the scenes on Parliament Hill every Wednesday and Friday, exclusively for subscribers. Sign up here.
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump attends UFC championship fight in New Jersey, taking a break from politics, Musk feud
NEWARK, N.J. (AP) — President Donald Trump walked out to a thunderous standing ovation just ahead of the start of the UFC pay-per-view card at the Prudential Center on Saturday night, putting his public feud with tech billionaire Elon Musk on hold to instead watch the fierce battles inside the cage. Trump was accompanied by UFC President Dana White and the pair headed to their cageside seats to Kid Rock's 'American Bad Ass.' Trump and White did the same for UFC's card last November at Madison Square Garden, only then they were joined by Musk. Advertisement Trump shook hands with fans and supporters — a heavyweight lineup that included retired boxing champion Mike Tyson — on his way to the cage. Trump was joined by his daughter Ivanka Trump and her husband, Jared Kushner, along with son Eric Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Trump shook hands with the UFC broadcast team that included Joe Rogan. Rogan hosted Trump on his podcast for hours in the final stages of the campaign last year. UFC fans went wild for Trump and held mobile devices in their outstretched arms to snap pictures of him. Trump arrived in time for the start of a card set to include two championship fights. Julianna Peña and Merab Dvalishvili were scheduled to each defend their 135-pound championships. Advertisement UFC fighter Kevin Holland won the first fight with Trump in the building, scaled the cage and briefly chatted with the President before his post-fight interview. ___ AP sports: Dan Gelston, The Associated Press


San Francisco Chronicle
24 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump attends UFC championship fight in New Jersey, taking a break from politics, Musk feud
NEWARK, N.J. (AP) — President Donald Trump walked out to a thunderous standing ovation just ahead of the start of the UFC pay-per-view card at the Prudential Center on Saturday night, putting his public feud with tech billionaire Elon Musk on hold to instead watch the fierce battles inside the cage. Trump was accompanied by UFC President Dana White and the pair headed to their cageside seats to Kid Rock's 'American Bad Ass.' Trump and White did the same for UFC's card last November at Madison Square Garden, only then they were joined by Musk. Trump shook hands with fans and supporters — a heavyweight lineup that included retired boxing champion Mike Tyson — on his way to the cage. Trump was joined by his daughter Ivanka Trump and her husband, Jared Kushner, along with son Eric Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Trump shook hands with the UFC broadcast team that included Joe Rogan. Rogan hosted Trump on his podcast for hours in the final stages of the campaign last year. UFC fans went wild for Trump and held mobile devices in their outstretched arms to snap pictures of him. Trump arrived in time for the start of a card set to include two championship fights. Julianna Peña and Merab Dvalishvili were scheduled to each defend their 135-pound championships. UFC fighter Kevin Holland won the first fight with Trump in the building, scaled the cage and briefly chatted with the President before his post-fight interview. ___