COMMITTEE ON THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION CONSIDERS
THE SITUATION IN PERU

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination this afternoon reviewed the situation of Peru with regard to its implementation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, in the presence of a delegation, under the Committee’s review procedure for States parties whose reports were more than five years’ overdue. The Committee also accepted Belize’s request to postpone the examination of the situation in that country until it could draft its report.

Eduardo Ponce Vivanco, Permanent Representative of Peru to the United Nations Office at Geneva, reiterated Peru’s commitment to the work of the Committee and to cooperating with that body, and said the delay in submitting its report should not be interpreted as a lack of political will on the part of the Peruvian Government. The Peruvian delegation, led by Daniel Antonio Saba De Andrea, Chairman of the Board of PERUPETRO S.A., described numerous measures undertaken by Peru to promote the participation of citizens and the protection of the environment in the context of hydrocarbon exploration or production activities.

Among comments made by Committee Experts, it was noted that non-governmental organizations had painted a very different picture of what was going on in Peru than the delegation had presented, and, in a closed meeting with Committee members, had stressed the importance they attached to the strict implementation of the tripartite agreement entered into by the State, businesses and the indigenous communities.

The delegation of Peru said that it expected to present its report to the Committee before the end of the year.

Peru is one of the 173 States parties to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and is obligated to submit periodic reports on implementation of the provisions of the Convention. It is also one of the 53 States parties who have recognized the competence of the Committee under article 14 of the Convention to consider communications from individuals or groups of individuals claiming to be victims of a violation by States parties of any of the rights set forth in the Convention.

Peru’s delegation, which made the oral presentation, also included representatives from the Ministry of Energy and Environment, and the Federation of Amazon Nations of Peru.

When the Committee reconvenes on Thursday, 7 August at 10 a.m., it will hear a presentation on the human rights index by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Review of the Implementation of the Convention in Peru

EDUARDO PONCE VIVANCO, Permanent Representative of Peru to the United Nations Office at Geneva, reiterated Peru’s commitment to the work of the Committee and to cooperating with that body. On the occasion of Peru’s review by the Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review Working Group, the Peruvian Justice Minister had reaffirmed Peru’s commitment to submitting its overdue reports to human rights treaty bodies. The delay in submitting its report to this Committee should not be interpreted as a lack of political will on the part of the Peruvian Government; it was rather owing to the enormous burden of procedural work linked with the numerous reports that Peru was required to present in international and regional forums.

DANIEL ANTONIO SABA DE ANDREA, Chairman of the Board of PERUPETRO S.A., said that he was the head of delegation for the Peruvian energy and mining sector issues. He said that efforts had been deployed by the Government to promote civil participation and the protection of the environment in that context. Extraction activities in Peru were thus undertaken while ensuring the rights to life and health, and in respect for the environment, which had not always been the case in the past. Today, hydrocarbons were no longer dumped in the Corrientes River. There were now judicial norms in place that ensured that such prejudicial practices were no longer used.

The Peruvian Constitution guaranteed the right to communal ownership for farmers and indigenous persons, whose customary rights were also recognized, Mr. Saba De Andrea continued. In Peru, the State guaranteed the right of all to equality before the law, and no one could be discriminated against for any reason whatsoever.

Concerning the situation of the Achuar, Quechua and Urarinas peoples in the Corrientes River basin, Mr. Saba De Andrea underscored that it was linked to the hydrocarbons activities in the Blocks 1AB and 8 mining concessions, which began working in that area in the 1970s. Having acknowledged the existence of significant levels of pollution in the Corrientes River, in September 2006, the Peruvian Government had created a multisectoral commission to study the socio-environmental situation of the affected population and to issue recommendations for bettering it. At the same time, a socio-environmental plan of action, which sought to improve the socio-economic conditions of those affected, was also approved. The results of the implementation of those two instruments were monitored on a monthly basis, with the effective participation of the State and of representatives of the indigenous groups that made up the affected population.

Mr. Saba De Andrea then provided information on hydrocarbon contracts that were currently under consideration for concession Blocks 104 and 106. Regarding Block 104, for which a licensing contract had been signed in April 2005 with the company Burlington Resources Peru Limited, a preliminary environmental impact study was currently under way. For Block 106, the preliminary environmental impact study was in the drafting stage. No hydrocarbon activity, whether exploration or production, could be undertaken on a petroleum concession without the involvement of the local population during preliminary impact assessments. The right of citizens to participate in questions regarding hydrocarbon activities had been formally adopted in the national policy by means of a legal norm that opened spaces for dialogue and for local involvement from the negotiation stage.

SONIA LOU ALARCON, a Lawyer with the Peruvian Ministry for Energy and Mines, continuing the Peruvian presentation, underscored that Peru guaranteed the protection of indigenous peoples, however those individuals and communities were organized. In May 2008, a new regulation providing for the participation of citizens in mining sector activities had been adopted.

The Constitution recognized indigenous peoples rights to the land they lived on, Ms. Alarcon said. If any damage were incurred from a particular project, the wronged party would have to be indemnified, following a trial.

Ms. Alarcon also highlighted a recent decree adopted by Peru approving the new environmental regulations for mining concessions. She also noted that a positive environmental impact study did not in and of itself confer a right to own or possess the land or to exploit it.

The Peruvian Government shared many of the concerns that had been expressed by the People’s Defender (Ombudsman) in his report. It was just for such reasons that a Ministry of the Environment had been created, Ms. Alarcon stressed.

CESAR SARASARA ANDREA, Counsellor with the Federation of Amazon Nations of Peru (CONAP), completing the presentation, said the Federation spared no effort in promoting tripartite dialogue between the Peruvian State, the mining companies and the indigenous peoples. It was important to ensure that the indigenous peoples were well informed about the nature of the companies and the negotiations in question, otherwise they would have no leg to stand on. The indigenous peoples needed economic independence, which, alone, could allow them to set up their own institutions. The Amazon basin was no longer what it had been: today, the animals typically seen on National Geographic covers featuring Peru had disappeared; there was not even any food left.

A Committee Expert welcomed the presence of a delegation from Peru for this review today before the Committee. He noted with satisfaction the measures taken by the Peruvian Government to protect the environment and, more globally, the “right to nature”. Concerning the impact of hydrocarbon waste, it was important to note that that type of waste affected not just the ground and the subsoil, but also the air, with consequences for the greenhouse effect. And, because air circulated, those consequences were not simply national, but had transnational impacts. It was asked what measures Peru had undertaken to promote alternative energy sources, which, sooner or later, would have to replace hydrocarbons.

An Expert noted that, during the closed meeting with concerned non-governmental organizations preliminary to this public meeting, the non-governmental organizations had painted a very different picture of what was going on in Peru than the delegation had presented. The non-governmental organizations had particularly stressed the importance they attached to the strict implementation of the tripartite agreement entered into by the State, businesses and the indigenous communities.

An Expert wanted to know if the consultations with the indigenous people were always undertaken with their informed consent and in good faith, as required by ILO Convention No. 169 on the rights of indigenous and tribal peoples.

An Expert underscored the crucial nature of the current debate: it put in the balance the hydrocarbon or mining activities which could provided for the economic welfare of the country against the State’s obligation to protect its indigenous and local populations. In this case, the only answer was dialogue. In that connection, if an agreement could not be reached and if the claims of the affected populations appeared serious, what was the outcome in such situations? Did the economic welfare of the State and the claims of companies always win out?

The delegation said that it expected to present its report to the Committee before the end of the year, so that it could be examined at the Committee’s next session.

Application of the Review Procedure for Belize

TORSTEN SCHACKEL, Secretary of the Committee, introducing the case of Belize, recalled that the Committee had never received Belize’s initial report, nor had the second and third periodic reports been received. In addition, it had never heard responses to questions sent by the Committee concerning Belize’s indigenous Maya population.

Mr. Schackel said a letter had been received from the Government of Belize, explaining that, in light of national elections and limited resources, Belize was unable to submit its periodic reports to Committee. In addition, Belize was requesting technical assistance from the Committee. Currently Belize had a total population of 200,000 inhabitants, with no mission in Geneva and with one staff at the mission in New York.

The Committee decided to accept Belize’s request for a postponement and to ask the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights if it could provide assistance to Belize in drafting its report.

For use of the information media; not an official record

CRD08022E