In defense of compliance with prior consultation agreements of the Hidrovía Amazónica project

By Henry Carhuatocto Sandoval President of the IDLADS Institute

This week the Oral Hearing of the protection process for compliance with prior consultation agreements of the Hidrovía Amazónica project, filed by the indigenous organization AIDESEP and the IDLADS Institute was held; In it, SENACE, the Ministry of Transport and Communications (MTC) and the company COHIDRO insisted on not knowing the fulfillment of the prior consultation agreements of the project related to the development of toxicological studies with international standards, the completion of the detailed engineering study and the stoppage of the river dredging due to the appearance of a migration of fish (mijano).

This is worrying, because it could lay the foundations for future social conflicts, since these agreements set the appropriate standards for an environmental impact assessment that ensures the physical and cultural survival of the Amazonian indigenous peoples.

During the Hearing, the State and COHIDRO argued that the withdrawal of the project’s environmental certification procedure and its temporary filing are a sufficient reason to terminate the process because there would have been “theft of the matter”; However, they did not consider that the Concessionaire has the obligation to present an Environmental Impact Study (EIA), even within a specified period under penalty of penalties, for which the certain and imminent threat of breach of agreements persists.

On the other hand, SENACE and the MTC argued that the ideal way to ensure compliance with agreements would not be an amparo process, ignoring that the Constitutional Court has established in foundation 37 of STC No No 022-2009-PI / TC that As part of the right to prior consultation, compliance with agreements must be guaranteed, and that Auto 2420-2012-AC establishes that the ideal means of non-compliance with the right to prior consultation is the appeal for protection.

It should be noted that the defense of SENACE and the MTC was formal and avoided ruling on whether they have failed to comply with the prior consultation agreements of the Amazon Waterway by not having the necessary studies to determine the environmental and social impacts that this project will generate, such as the related to its technical aspects and the effects on people’s health and the integrity of the environment.

Added to this is the unobjectionable fact of not complying after six years with the agreements related to the Regulation of Infringement and Sanctions in environmental matters for river transport, which had to address the impact of the dredging in transit of the mijano, spawning and turbidity, which was a essential safeguard for the sustainability of the Amazon Waterway project.

[Publirreportaje]