 Thank you so much Patry and Louise for being here with us for the next hour and a half. It is beautiful looking at this chat room because I am seeing friends from the entire Western Hemisphere and across Europe and other countries. So welcome to all of you. In some ways this is a reunion for some of us. I'm John Kavana, I direct the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington and I have the privilege of being the moderator here and before I introduce our four wonderful panelists and then encourage you also to ask questions let me just say a little bit of background. First I want to say this is the fifth in a series of webinars that the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation has pioneered under the beautiful title with everything up for grabs the green new deals the world needs and they've been holding these webinars with with people from all over the world for now several weeks and they will continue and I urge you to sign up. Today's session is also cosponsored by IPS by our sister institute and the Netherlands the Transnational Institute by the Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives which I've had the pleasure to work with for 30 years with the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy the same CL. Addis in El Salvador you're about to meet Vita Lena Morales who many of you know many of you have hosted her in Canada in the United States and elsewhere and also Terra Husta so fantastic to have these these cosponsors. This today we're focusing in on extractivism or a fancy word for mining and human rights and this terrible set of laws called investor-state dispute settlement and we called it hard law versus soft law and we're going to get into the issues of how trade and investment agreements going all the way back to NAFTA 30 years ago have given rise to this very biased system of law investor-state dispute settlement through which corporations use hard law if you will to undermine the soft law of environmental rights of indigenous rights of women's rights and so on especially against communities and governments in the global south but this isn't just about understanding the system many of you have been fighting it for your whole lives this is also about how we can imagine a path forward through these laws and I just want to say one one slightly more personal note as we started this off because partly being overwhelmed by seeing Vita Lena on the screen and Aldo and and friends seeing friends from from all over here I just want to bring us back for one second it was 11 years ago that the Institute that Manuel Perez Rocha and I worked for and Jen Moore now works for the Institute for Policy Studies gave a human rights award to five people it was actually to a network in El Salvador called the National Roundtable Against Mining in El Salvador and the people who were going to come this was 2009 insisted that they be able to bring five people normally we would have to and they also insisted that we put together a tour to bring them through the United States and Canada which is part of why we're all many of the people on the scholar here today they came one of them was Vita Lena Morales who you're you're about to meet and they started to tell the story of mining companies coming to El Salvador and of community resistance out of that trip IPS and Mining Watch Canada and it's wonderful to have both Jen was from Mining Watch Canada great to have Jamie Keneen here who runs Mining Watch Canada we too linked up with CL where Carla is from and other groups Mining Watch I mean Earthworks and others to create a group that we called international allies and for the past seven years the seven years from then through 2016 2017 the people of El Salvador taught the world about both the horrors of mining but in 2009 right after we announced the award they were sued by a big mining company called Pacific Rim and all of a sudden we all had to learn a great deal about these investor state laws through which these lawsuits were were were introduced and I just jumped to the end in 2016 after massive global pressure the venue at the World Bank that decides these suits ruled against the mining company unanimously huge victory but after massive global mobilizations and then six months later in San Salvador the legislature national legislature of El Salvador voted for El Salvador to become the first country in the world to ban mining to save the environment remarkable to think about this and at a moment in the world where we need hope um this is hope and part of the goal today is to Viralina we'll be speaking part of it is to understand how people came together for these two giant victories and how we can spread the lessons of this fight but also the other fights that many of you are involved in uh to keep winning and to beat this back okay uh enough from me we now are going to turn in the way this will work is um we're giving each of the four people 10 minutes to um offer some reflections then I will ask them each a question just to get the conversation started and then you all will be invited any of those of you who would like to ask a question can then ask questions and that will quickly fill up an hour and a half so we start with Carla Garcia Zendejas who has been for quite a few years with the Center for International Environmental Law and at the center of these battles against mining companies and investor state um Carla and I think this we're we're about to see how clever we are technologically because I think Carla is also going to show you um some slides so take it away Carla thank you thank you John uh and it is it's lovely to see everyone in in the chat un abrazo y un saludo a todos um and I have a few minutes so I will try to go quickly but not speak quickly which will be which will be magic somehow um to mention yes cl is now 30 years old and um we work at the apex of human rights and environment and it's been it's been through exactly these this trying to accompany communities in their fights to raise their voices against um the impacts of mining development projects throughout the world that that have um violated their human rights that we we found ourselves pushed or pulled into um learning about trade and investor state dispute uh settlements uh universe to be able to put ourselves and push into these types of arbitration um where we're not welcome and that is that is a story communities and and any other voice that isn't uh the company and and the state is not welcome so hopefully we can get to the yes please so we're going to be talking about I don't know if if it's possible to put it in full full screen so so the so people can see if you go to view it'll let you see full screen thank you thank you and so what is what are these why were we pulled into these this trade agreement there had been work by cl and many many others IPS uh public citizen just when NAFTA was coming on um and I'm from Mexico and we were told money was going to be coming out of our pockets it was the best thing uh everybody was going to be fantastic and and even though these trade agreements supposedly you know have some features that are supposed to increase and who in pre-increased economies they have and this was a famous chapter 11 in NAFTA protections for investors so at the end the some of the most powerful things that come out of these trade agreements is the fact that they are investment agreements they are trade but mostly the power that they give investors makes them just this full-fledged laws that protect investors when they feel that they have been hurt uh and and and I say hurt because they act like individuals who have been pushed out in many cases so you have NAFTA you have then CAFTA uh you have the the bilateral agreements the one between Canada and Colombia uh you have all of these regional bilateral trade agreements that really create this legal system on top of our domestic legal systems for the protection of investors next one so IGZID is this famous center for the settlement of investment dispute which gives the rights to corporations to basically sue governments it allows them the ability to claim that even when they haven't put one brick in place for a factory if something didn't go their way they can sue governments or millions billions of dollars and this is where this is the system this is inside the system where we had to push in because only the investor can sue the government the government cannot sue the investor and a person who is affected by the investor cannot sue the corporation either so it's one more system that allows corporations to do what they want um while not while not creating or even trying or or wanting a level playing field this is their system of protection period next one and so the question and and I'm not and I told Manuel I'm not a fan of the hard law versus soft law but but we can talk about it um hard law yes international and international human rights law international law comes from treaties comes from um agreements and these names will make sense you know the paris agreement is casu which is about to become you know enforceable um the ilo 169 convention uh the rio declaration all of these things create international law um domestic rulings constitutional decisions become um uh for example the constitutional court of colombia has these fantastic rulings that are then used as jurisprudence even in peru or mexico even if it's not the same jurisdiction and those start becoming jurisprudence and international law uh obviously the international court of justice the the african commission on human rights uh human and people's rights the inter-american court there are many ways where where jurisprudence and law comes into play and I and and this is where the the issue of soft law versus hard law well the declaration the real declaration does not necessarily law but the the issue is that the principles that are from these uh treaties that weren't originally meant to be um uh hard law that weren't mandatory filter themselves into legislation in our countries when when rio the rio declaration happened in 92 countries bed went back home and included these these principles of access uh to information public participation access to justice in our legal systems they became law those principles have meant something and then you have decisions from the courts and then they keep going up and up so the when people say the real declaration isn't isn't mandatory actually it is for many many countries it is law and this is how how these decisions keep going up people will will obviously uh know and have heard about the un guiding principles for for uh business and human rights and again there are interpretations there are movement of these rights that have gone forward uh in such a way that this question about soft law versus hard law in many cases isn't valid anymore and I want that to just be clear that when you hear it don't be swayed because it's that question is that that separation is really not there the way it was before next so that corporate responsibility to respect human rights as I said has come through litigation has come through interpretation has come through uh and even incredibly now gone through ISDS specifically cases of this type of arbitration next one so this case Urbacer against Argentina is an incredible moment that really cuts cuts exit and how exit has worked um incredibly because it's the first time that exit heard a human rights counterclaim Argentina you know Urbacer was uh was this concessioner this company that sued Argentina uh and then Argentina said well I'm going to sue you too I'm going to counter sue you for human rights violations and they said that the that the concessioner had failed to deliver the right uh the human right to water and so um incredibly exit heard that counterclaim and that was the first obstacle um you know they jumped over that obstacle initially um and so this this really this case is really showing uh that the system itself is moving next one so the the arguments that Argentina made uh had to do with the universal declaration for human rights had to do with the committee on environmental social and cultural rights uh and and there was an actual recognition by the tribunal that the there were human rights obligations such as the right to water that could be imposed directly on international corporations that that moment where exit says you know what international human rights law does apply to the corporation this is an incredible moment and it's a moment that is in a system that we hate is in a system that we don't want to exist that in a perfect world we wouldn't even want to know about but we've had to keep putting our noses into the system to be able to work in it around it bringing amicus brief in the case that that John was talking about about Pacific Rim against El Salvador um Ciel presented some amicus and brought human rights issues into that amicus they didn't like it but this was years before Urbacer and now exit is even talking about human rights which is a major major change next so in this case the issue of doing no harm is what Urbacer versus Argentina brings forward um it even makes a distinction between a negative and a positive right which is some technical issues that uh negative obligations require investors not to violate human rights and it recognizes that corporations should not violate these human rights but it didn't find this positive obligation in the treaty because all of this is being based on the treaty um and so unfortunately Argentina lost the case but even the language in this interpretation and decision from this this moment is a seminal moment um and is so important also for the discussions that are happening for the creation of the binding treaty on transnational corporations and human rights because there is no we can't speak today in 2020 about a question about the responsibility of corporations when they violate human rights it is a fact now it is not a question next so aside from that decision inside exit inside these arbitrations the Nigerian Morocco bilateral investment treaty is a new generation investment treaty which actually says that investors and investments shall uphold human rights in the host state there's no question to that sentence there is absolutely no question in the sentence and this is a truly different way to create an investment treaty um additionally it talks about the fact that the core labor standards are a clear requirement for investors to follow these this is something else this is something we had not seen this is relatively uh you know new from 2016 but it's bringing all of this forward and it's after pressure this is pressure that has gone throughout the world to bring in human rights into these supposed monolithic institutions next so that is that i'll i'll leave with that to say that we are in another moment these are photographs that i wanted to leave you with um these are lovely people from um romania uh who we who we support in in their arbitration unfortunately we we not support in their arbitration we've brought in their voices and testimony into the gabriel resources versus romania um arbitration they are from rocha montana and and it's a community who gave their testimony testimony which by the way was not accepted by exit but i have a feeling that they read what we put in they were told not to pay attention to it but this is how we continue to push forward to put all these uh these voices and to get these voices into this system that is not um meant to have us and just to say it is it is a different system now and it's thanks to the many many people um many that you'll hear from uh next thank you thank you carla so much for this and uh let me just say um wonderful erin eisenberg who has helped put this whole thing together and is doing the technical details he mentioned to you all that if you have questions as that come to you as you're listening there's a little q and a section on the panel across the bottom of your screen and you can write in questions and we will get to those after we've heard from the other three so next we turn to aldo uh orayana who is with terra fusta in bolivia um they have been working on cases uh of communities fighting mining companies who launch suits in peru in bolivia where they are based and uh in ecuador and elsewhere and uh it's fabulous to have you although here with us as well thanks so much uh john i'm going to speak in spanish to all the companions for having invited us to share some reflections in this in this webinar uh as a fair test we have been involved in in some international resources that they had precisely to communities uh uh in the territory and from that i'm going to tell you two cases in which we have been involved that have to do with mining and with oil both cases uh related also to the violation of human rights and to this system of that allows the multinationals to send directly to the countries in international tribunals the first case that i want to tell you is the is the case of the imarazo in peru well it is developed in the area of puno which is a limited department with bolivia and the 2011 year the population and the communities of this region get up and start protesting because of the presence of a canadian mining company named berkrieg in the territory that wanted to exploit money so we are talking about a area with high agricultural and agricultural vocation and that depends on the lake and the hydropower courses for their subsistence to guarantee their food food and as we know the mining because in an intensive use of water and also a very large potential to contaminate the nearby hydropower sources and well in the process of granting the concessions to this canadian mining company there is no transparency and also the same company is trying to get the social license in a fraudulent way no but the point here is that the protests for may or June 2011 of the communities in maras are intensified and finally the project is able to be stopped the project is stopped and well it is a story similar to that of the Salvador in fact communities that get up to protect their water in a multinational canadian mining company the point is that from this achievement there are two very very important consequences a local and an international one the first one is that almost immediately criminal criminal criminal judicial processes begin against more than 100 common leaders in maras that is 100 leaders are accused of different crimes of disturbances and even extortion to the state that is accused they are considered as a criminal organization that has basically kidnapped the state so after years of processes these these leaders finally have been taken to court and only one the main point of these conflicts of the maras in the name of Walter adubides sentenced to seven years and also to pay an equivalent amount to six hundred thousand dollars in compensation to the state to stop the damages that supposedly caused this conflict this is a very clear case of criminalization of the protest in in peru that and in latin america in general no the second consequence was that berkrieg this canadian company demanded to the peru in the city that very well explained carla is this the international center of the rules of relative differences to investments that is part of the group of the world bank and the company well demanded peru a compensation of more than 500 million dollars saying that peru had included in the fulfillment of the free trade between canada and peru then the process lasted until 2017 finally this panel of private arbitrage decided that the peru had to compensate for the company the sum of 18 million dollars that added to costs and interests reached more than 30 million and well as they already explained in the introduction and carla several countries peru as well as several countries in the region after the consensus of washington and under the logic of liberalization total of the economy and of the investments they signed a series of agreements of free trade and also of investment protection allow them to then give them the legal basis to companies like berkrieg to demand to the country in international courts and this happened throughout the region including bolivia not a fierce competition was unleashed to attract foreign investors in the region and the world in the under the umbrella of neoliberalism and well this came also accompanied by reforms and new legal mechanisms to criminalize the protest to depress the protest throughout the region mainly in relation to mining operations and all this brought of course first the non-compliance of many rights such as the previous consultation in indigenous communities but also the violation of human rights and even currently the murder of many leaders in latin america well they say many organization partners that being environmentalists being a thinker of the mother earth in latin america is very dangerous well I quickly tell you the second example that I wanted to mention is a very well known case that you have probably heard of him is the case of chevron of the petroler company of the united states chevron in ecuador is the so-called Chernobyl of the ecuatorian amazonia because it has probably caused one of the biggest environmental disasters without a doubt of the ecuador but also of the world it all begins when the petroler company texaco arrives in ecuador in the 60s to exploit petroleum in amazonia it is an equal area of very high biodiversity and in more homes of indigenous and peasant communities well texaco was there until the 90s and it was exploiting petroleum for more than three decades and it has been documented that in that time more than 650,000 crude petroleum valleys were taken and more than 16,000 million gallons of residual water to the rivers and the jungle of the amazonia affecting more than 30,000 indigenous and peasant of different communities then from that fact of that crime the union of texaco affected by nationalities of indigenous and more than 80 peasant communities whose only objective has always been to always look for the separation and remediation of the damage produced by the petroler now well in 93 the communities laudab which is the union of affected by texaco begins a trial with the united states in tribunals of the united states in that interim in 2001 chevron the multinational petroler company of the united states buys texaco but finally well this judgment of the affected by texaco chevron lasts two decades and in 2011 when the case had already been transferred to the Ecuador for the same request of the company the tribunals in Ecuador fail in favor of the affected and sentence the petroler to pay 9,500 million dollars to separate the damage that they had caused 30 years of exploitation and this is a very well-known story because it is the typical david and golead it is about indigenous and peasant organizations that led the tribunals to one of the most powerful multinationals in the world we are not talking about chevron in 2018 it had income of more than 150 million dollars that in that year they were almost twice the internal product of the Ecuador we are not really talking about a multinational giant and it was a success the problem is that chevron as the trial progresses it had measures apart from accusing and defaming the affected and the defense because it took out all its adequate assets it did not leave anything then when the sentence was dictated because there was no way to execute it nor to embargo on the company but that was not all but the year 2009 and this has to do with this system because of what companies demand in international tribunals in 2019 the company demanded in a panel of arbitrage of the permanent court of arbitrage of the aya to the ecuador deducing that they had fulfilled the bilateral investment treaty between ecuador and the united states the case is very large to begin with this panel applied a bilateral trade of investment in retroactive forms but the worst of all is not that but that in 2018 when this arbitrage panel failed ordered failed in favor of the company in the first place and ordered the ecuatorian state to cancel the sentence that in 2011 the affected by texaco chevron had won the company that is, he orders a sovereign state to cancel a sentence that had been produced in a trial of three of more than two of two decades to a legal system of the summer then I wanted to show those two cases because they are very important especially in the current context of the pandemic, that is, there are two examples in which first indigenous communities who want to protect their water that now in the pandemic in the framework of the pandemic we have seen that it is very important to protect the land the water the land because that is what gives us food first is a case where not only punish the communities but also the companies are seeing the way to get benefits from the current pandemic and the second one has to do with the impunity of which chevron is benefited by this by this international legal framework and it is important because well during the same pandemic there are already international ZDs have been alerted about several risks that this pandemic can bring, that is, the pandemic is going to happen but the crisis and the consequences are going to continue to the plant and various networks have been documented in the international sphere that, for example, the mining industry has enjoyed certain benefits to continue to operate in countries such as Peru and in many other countries and also there is the possibility that before the measures taken by the states to save the economic crisis measures measures all kinds of measures make them possible to be demanded in these international courts during these 25 years as you pointed out John about free trade and we have already seen a number of examples by which companies can demand the countries health issues, environmental issues of all kinds, so they have already been alerted at an international level about this possibility that well in the framework of the reactivation of the economy it will surely be visible because what this issue does is basically punish the regulation capacity of the countries, they cannot regulate in a free and sovereign way in the benefit of their population without, if they do, they are threatened not to be taken to the international courts, even many for fear do not do it, they do not rule out the fear that this is supposed to and well to conclude I would like to talk about what can be done now, many organizations during all these years have proposed several alternatives to get out of this system, the first of course is to stop negotiating, stop signing more free trade agreements that include this possibility of demand of state investors and bilateral trade agreements that in the end are the source of power that the multinationals have and try to denounce or terminate those that already exist and there I can quote maybe later with more space the case of Bolivia and Ecuador in our region that not only have not only come out of the city but that they have already started several years ago to denounce their bilateral investment treaties, that is, they have started to take away power from the multinationals to question our sovereignty and the decisions that our states can take for the benefit of the population but one important thing and that they also mentioned is that these bilateral treaties, these investment agreements protect the multinationals and the foreign investment but they do not assume any obligation for the multinationals such as Chevron for example that goes and contaminates the Ecuadorian Amazon and is imposed, so there are alternatives to the international level that Carla has mentioned very well that we must support, not that as a fair land we also adhere to that call and it is for example for the construction of international instruments that force companies to respond to the damage they cause and that allow for the separation and access to justice of communities such as the Ecuadorians and so many other communities that have seen how the multinationals have arrived and then that friend leaving violations of human rights, environmental contamination and others, we think that an instrument that guarantees that would value the system of human rights at a global level because well, as they have already mentioned, also the human rights standards, the mandates that protect human rights at an international level are practically a suggestion, they are in essence voluntary, there is no international entity that does not respect them, on the other hand, the rights, the rights of the multinationals have coercion force, they are forced to comply and there is a whole series of mechanisms so that when a country is sentenced for these tribunals, they pay what they have to pay, so with that I would conclude my intervention and maybe we can talk later a little more about a third option because it is not enough just to start disassembling the system because this pandemic and the covid-19 also, despite being a very big crisis, opens many doors for us questioning a systemic level, everything that is happening in the world. Thank you so much, although you have fans in the chat room who are saying good things about your work in the Andes, so thank you. Now we turn to Vidalina Morales and you will see her sitting in the dining area of the group that she is the president of, which is the Association of Development Alternatives in El Salvador and they serve the best pupusas in El Salvador in this dining area of Andes, so I want you all to imagine the smell of pupusas coming into through your screen here as we welcome Vidalina. As I mentioned, Vidalina first started working against mining in El Salvador back in 2005-2006 but became the teacher of the rest of the world, if you will, about this struggle when she came in 2009 and I will never forget when she was accepting the award, the Human Rights Award, this is way back 2009 she said could we imagine an El Salvador without mining and she also said could we imagine a world without rules like these investor state rules and I think most of them of us thought no, we can't. So it's wonderful to have you joining us here Vidalina all these years later and it's wonderful to hear your reflections anything you would like to share with people here around the world about what you've learned from the struggle in El Salvador so welcome Vidalina. I think it's a, well for me it's a first experience, let's say, in this sense since our, or my work or my work has been practically more together with the communities, it's not to be so behind a camera but well this is the reality that today offers us the technology, let's say the advantages between food, right, that technology offers us and well we will know how to take advantage of it to the maximum and I want to especially thank the people who are connected to this activity I think it's an opportunity to be able to share with all of us, a little bit of our some ideas, right, of course that the time here is a little short but listening to the colleagues who have preceded me they have tried to be very punctual, right, with the times and very, very clear their participation, I already said it, John, our country, El Salvador, I want to reverse a little maybe the order as I had proposed at the beginning I will start talking, taking a few minutes to put into context how we arrived at this moment how we empowered ourselves from a fight, right, so, so, so big, well now we look at it like this in this way to fight and defend our common feet, it was necessary to oppose the implementation of projects called bad development, like the metal mining, right, like the plant, let's say, multinational companies when they arrive at our communities, they plan that mining is an opportunity and so they sell the idea, an opportunity for development for our communities, for our countries and well they do not explain to us, they do not tell us that mining is an industry that contaminates, that kills, that deteriorates the environment, that is far from being known as part of multinational companies, mining companies in this case in the years 2004 we did not realize this reality, we took, as we say, the Salvadorans, we took cards on the subject and we informed ourselves, we realized because the mining problem is, that is, mining is a very harmful industry for what I mentioned earlier, so we faced this threat, we fought, let's say, that a fundamental element that emerged in those years was the technical, scientific investigation, to boost our struggle, it was an opportunity, the opinion, right, of experts like the now dead Dr. Robert Mulan, Dr. Adina Larios, who enlightened us, the path that communities and organizations were going to push, right, to defend our territory with our dear Salvador of mining, I think that, well, I am convinced, we are convinced that a part that cannot be obeyed in these efforts is the technical part and the scientific part, that gives us a horizon towards where to push our struggles and it was as if we organized, right, well, we strengthened the organization because, said step by step, well, this country, these communities, the same needs have pushed us to maintain level of organization and in this case the mining was not the exception, we organized, we articulated and we started this struggle and I said it in 2004, there was a strong threat, let's say, of the Pacific Ring company, of the Canadian capital, for exploiting the mine that was just here, less than three kilometers from where I am located, from where our association is, but people are aware, I mean, the people were aware that we need more water than gold, that with water we can live but with gold, no, that was not true, that was like one of our slogans that accompanied us and well, we did not continue in this struggle and then to make it concrete, we would say, in this sense in 2008, the company was already seen without much opportunity to develop the project and demand the Salvadoran state and I want to here in particular, to really thank those articulations at the international level that have supported us for many years, right, and I try that was that force that was generated at the level of the United States of Canada to denounce this threat of mining here in El Salvador and I also want to say that the true sky, thanks to the sky, for accompanying us also in this process, we had doubts because certainly for some, let's say, some organizations that we were within the struggle, they had a lot of distrust that we could take this, that is, we could be within this international litigia but the clarity with which the sky raised it, seeing it as an opportunity that as a civil society we had a minimum space where we could translate our voices in this international court in El there played this important role of the sky that gave us strength to say, well, well, what do we have to do? Well, enter into this game, right, that the same companies impose to protect their interests because we from the beginning had clarity that the international courts are precisely to protect the interests of great transnational with that clarity we venture and then we must say that in the year they were more or less eight years of struggle in this court where the final verdict, right, after all this this international litigia, the court gives the reason to El Salvador in October of 2016 this court gives the reason to El Salvador and well practically it was a joy for the Salvadorans and Salvadorans but in particular for the organizations that we had been in front of this battle that this court failed against the Pacific Ring company and it forced the old woman to the Pacific Ring to pay the El Salvadoran State eight million dollars that cost a trial so that they would pay them because after they lose the lawsuit they also almost get to say that they fall in debt. Well, what they are used to to do is not to face these realities and in the end they ended up well paying the El Salvadoran State these eight million dollars and as I said that was in October 2016 and in March 2017 our struggle continued, right, for the approval of a law that prohibited metal mining and it was like that in October 2016 in the Salvadoran Congress a law was approved that prohibits metal mining in the country we go on to let's say conclude with that because this battle of 12 years and they are right to be they give the reason to the communities of the Salvadoran people and this law is approved for unanimity within the Salvadoran Congress, we go on to make a little history, right, in our country and in the whole world because these litigants and these battles also win with with a lot of organization with a lot of articulation with a lot of will of men and women mobilizing us on the street, right, to demand then this demand that we are heard, right, then practically I want to put a little in context because I think it is extremely important that after, I want to see, it is March 2017 that this battle is won we do not dismantle our struggle, we do not dismantle our organization, we continue believing that we must continue defending our few and deteriorated common goods that we have and in El Salvador thanks to all thanks to all that effort has been maintained in the last years in the last decade of every sorry an articulation on defense issues in the environment very strong that is the one that has been able to maintain that active struggle in the local and national and thanks to that it has not been achieved within the legislative congress that there is a that a favorable law is approved for the extractive companies of water here because it is also another struggle that we carry out that there is a general law of water and all this struggle has prevented a law has not been approved that we demand communities and social organizations but neither do private companies, despite all the effort that they have made within the congress legislative, they have not achieved because a favorable law is passed to its interests, that we believe is a belief from my point of view that it is a satisfaction that keeps us firm in this struggle and in this resistance for our common goods of nature, for our water, for our rivers, for our forests and now that a little bit also seeing the reality of the world of which no country is left out of this reality, as the covid-19 is, we can understand more the situation of the urgent need to maintain our real common goods such as water, for example, in perfect conditions to be able to pay a little for this this pandemic, we have found ourselves here in El Salvador with a country where the water problem is a very sensitive reality of communities, we do not have access to water in most communities and well, we do not have that law that could allow better stability in families in terms of imagine that there is a situation where the government campaign says that to face covid people have to wash their hands well with water and soap, it is possible that the soap is found but in reality the water we have is in bad conditions so this is not like the contradiction of these realities that we are facing in our world today because I think that in context that would be what could put as as let's say as a result of this 12-year struggle in El Salvador where because today we have this law that is by way written in paper from the organizations and civil society we continue to believe that this legal framework should raise a constitutional range that is like our other bet today so that the issue of mining has been raised to a constitutional range we have not found the echo within the legislative assembly within the legislators today for today they are involved in other interests fought between bodies such as the executive and the legislative this situation leads a little to disappoint many of our people it is also a very complex situation that we are facing today a government that to my judgment and maybe it is too extremist to my judgment is a copy of donald trun that here has to be done what he says and nothing else I do not listen to the population and it has almost become a government that because it has exercised a lot a lot but a lot of power well as then we face in this reality the communities the organizations this situation to see for no one is a secret as the transnational transnational as the monsanto the bayer have let's say entered our territory until the last corner of our communities with their products and they have invaded and have contaminated our way of life they have practically destroyed our environment and and against that situation well the truth is we are suffering in the quality of an environmental deterioration practically infertile soils for excessive use of chemicals of fertilizers in agriculture contaminated rivers that is the situation is very complex and of course this or those who use all this are the transnational that every time enrich more of their real business before this I must say that from the organizations and from the communities we are not staying with crossed arms and one of the bets from our organization ades is a lot to go strengthening those technical capacities those capacities from our people to be able to give let's say a leap in quality and be able to bet on family agriculture to organic agriculture this is a topic that because from ades we have been addressing for several years it costs a little because of course that means to learn those practices so so penetrated in the mind of our peasants and peasants of how they can produce their food and work their land but today more than ever we are convinced and convinced of our ades association that we actually need to do that let's say to do that return to those ancestral practices that lived in harmony with our nature as they are well how did our ancestors live in the past we can't do it in any way hello hello no viralina thank you so much i mean and i wish we could go on forever we have about 25 minutes left and i do think about half there are over a hundred people on this webinar and over half of them i think have hosted viralina at some point across canada and united states in europe and latin america so um it's fantastic to have you here uh and thank you for sharing all of that right up till the present moment we have one final person that we'll turn to now and then we'll turn directly to your questions a few of you have written questions in the q and a section which is at the bottom of your screen so if you have more questions write them there we'll turn finally to jen more who um who in 2011 helped co-coordinate the international allies in support of la mesa and el salvador and with manuel peres rocha of ips she did that from mining watch canada and is now based in mexico working with with the institute for policy studies so jen if you could keep your remarks a little bit less than 10 minutes that will allow us time for two or three questions so to jen more sounds good um and and just greetings to everybody i'm really really grateful to be on on this call and um and also grateful to to john and manwell for the opportunity to to move to ips after moving to mexico city and and working for mining watch to be able to continue collaborating with uh such a rich circle of organizations and uh with ades and organizations in la mesa and in el salvador and terra costa and others as the international allies coalition focuses has broadened uh to support struggles uh around in different parts of the region and even in different parts of the world uh chasing after the likes of oceana gold and um and trying to share the lessons from the the work with with el salvador with other communities who are now facing similar threats um as although put it well you know this proliferation of suits that are really intended to to further put down the really remarkable and brave struggles of of communities for uh water for their health for their land and to make it really really difficult for governments to make decisions that would work in their interest and protection of the environment with respect for the laws and protection of community well-being and with respect for their self-determination i just want to comment really briefly on some collaborative research initiatives that have grown out of the work of the international allies and um and perhaps focus my comments about some recent recent work concerning the links between uh what we're seeing now in the context of the COVID pandemic and the mining industry um before we get into some questions uh first just to comment really briefly on uh an effort that was a joint effort between mining watch cl and IPS uh a report that we put out a year ago called extractivism casino in which uh tried to map and show the proliferation of investor state suits against governments in latin america in particular and building off this awareness that the extractive sector is the most litigious sector when it comes to this sort of case um extractive extractives in that case speaking to oil gas and mining knowing that extractives can include as as vidolina brought in agribusiness and and other big uh industries um latin america is the most sued region and we found in in doing a scan of the 38 cases that have been brought by mining companies uh companies against latin american governments since 1998 and with increasing frequency that in the vast majority of cases these were cases where communities were mobilizing to resist or to demand accountability for harms and really in which the companies were seeing uh this resource provided to them through this slew of investor protection agreements around the world um a last resort uh to make enormous amounts of money and uh to punish uh governments for having their to do something in in favor of people including governments courts human rights bodies um implementing different sorts of measures and in a third of those cases these were cases where indigenous peoples and communities uh where their consent and their self-determination was at the heart of of the case and over half of them related to the implementation of of mining are environmental rules so what vidolina and amesa have fought in al salvador what um the amira communities in in puno peru have fought is is part of a a a growing trend really in the region and and in other parts of the world too um and i i just want to comment too that a couple of other interesting points from this research was that um as most of us are aware there was a disproportionate number of of these companies um are canadian uh reflective of the disproportionate role that the canadian authorities play in financing this industry and over half didn't have any operating mind as in the bear creek case as in al salvador and this being really enabled by uh the rise of of third party financing um and this learning from that that work um has helped us to to reach out and to build our work with other communities in different parts of the region um i won't go through uh the other many of the other cases but just to flag that it's been a really remarkable and wonderful learning uh process to be able to share some of the experiences directly from al salvador with uh community partners now in guatemala uh from the peaceful resistance la puya which i think many of you will have heard about that over the last 10 years have been fighting to also protect scarce water supplies um in order to protect the health of their communities and who are now being sued by uh nevada based uh firm caps cassidy and associates and had the opportunity to be in touch with ades with vidivina and and antonio and others to also hear from um the former environmental attorney uh of the human rights and buzzmen to share some of their experiences and learning um when we know that dealing with these sorts of investor state suits are quite esoteric and quite complicated and so exclusionary in terms of what their implications are for for local struggles um and so the work really does continue in terms of broadening out and and building these these alliances and and sharing these lessons another aspect of the suits and i think this is a bit harder to track and bit harder to document but that we flag in in extractivism casino and that um i think is important to reflect on now is this aspect of the chill effect that arises with investor state arbitration cases um as part of corporate capture as part of the control that we see corporations in using to influence governments now and um where the mere threat of a suit can be enough to influence government decisions there's some specific evidence that this was the case when the guatemal and government now 10 years ago decided not to suspend the marlin mine that was owned by Canadian company gold core um upon order from the inter-american human rights commission um over issues such as impacts of that gold mine on water on people's health and lack of respect for the the consent of 18 miama communities since then i think we've also seen that uh put the brakes on important decisions that were made in other countries where big struggles to try to prevent mining from uh ever taking root uh similar to the efforts of the Salvadoran people in the case of ecuador uh they achieved a constitutional decree uh back in 2008 that should have extinguished almost every mining concession in that country but that was not fully applied um there was certainly pressure being brought by the Canadian embassy and there is no doubt in my mind uh that many uh mining companies were threatening ecuador with numerous uh investor state arbitration cases and i just want to flag this as the question i don't have um sort of the hard evidence to prove it but sort of up till now and now that we're in the context of this covid pandemic and um mexico is one of the few countries that did not immediately declare mining as an essential industry uh during the this public health uh crisis and multiple crises that are related to it um wonder how many threats the mexican government got to make mining essential uh as it was declared in mid-may and as we are on the eve now too of the going into effect of the NAFTA 2.0 um which although it does not include um the possibility of investor state arbitration cases uh directly moving forward between uh canada and mexico um those will still be enabled under the trans-pacific agreement and and i just want to comment briefly now and then i i think i'll save my comments about what we can do for the discussion um about some broader coalition work trying to understand what is happening under covid with regards to the mining industry and um and really some of the comments that we've been finding and this has been repeated from communities uh from throughout different parts of latin america and in different regions of the world is that this really is not a pandemic for the mining industry but there are a number of worsening pandemics for land and water defenders for the people that are really trying to protect their water and their health for the good of their communities and the good of us all um in which we're seeing not just the risk of heightened threat of uh covid outbreaks where there are operating mines and those have been allowed to continue but also uh deepening uh threats of violence and militarization uh in these territories where people have been resisting uh the entry of the mining industry where both governments and companies have been taking advantage of people being under lockdown to try to advance their projects and which we're seeing deregulation happening in country after country as well to further entrench uh the mining the extractivist model um and that is now being proposed uh or put forward as a supposed uh solution uh for economic stimulus and recovery in the coming period um and just as a final comment that it's been it's been glaringly obvious to those organizations and many of you here that are on the call about how lawyers and companies are fishing for opportunities in the context of covid as well to bring another wave of uh investor state cases and um and the pressures that that as well as mounting debt bring on many states to uh try to persist with extractivism as a truly false solution to to what we need um going ahead. I'll end there and and hopefully we have a time for some two questions and can talk a bit more about hopefully what we can do. So thank you so much Jen uh and all of you uh for for this conversation. We have 10 minutes left and so before we get into a question I do just want to thank um again the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation which is sponsoring this is the fifth and a long series under the broader name of the green new deals the world needs so if you're if this is your first time joining do go to the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation and sign up for others and also if you want to be in touch with any of the four people um their their organizations are listed on on the announcement and and dive right in if any of you would like to join monthly calls of international allies or get more involved or get its materials you can go to the Institute for Policy Studies website and you'll see the emails there of Jen Moore and Manuel Perez Rocha and just write them and and get involved. So the I've been looking first of all there are a lot of great comments and questions on the chat side and then some of you have written questions in um in the question and answer and maybe if I could just sum them up well several of you did ask about how things have changed under COVID something that Jen Moore was just addressing but most of the questions are getting at there may be there may be summed up here which is um that uh many of you are talking about the need to either dismantle this system of unjust laws or to transform it and Carla started actually with some ways in which some of the newer agreements have started um to transform and so I think it'd be interesting if each of you and you really only have one to two minutes each could say a final word on that as you think ahead maybe five to ten years from now um what you are hoping we you know the hundred people on this webinar and the groups we work with in the broader communities um would have achieved with with this um where would this system be we know we want much of destructive mining to end we know as Dina Lina said that we need to keep fighting to protect water but in terms of these rules um where would you hope we are and and if you could just give a headline and then we'll all go to your website to learn more so starting with you Carla no no pressure no pressure to try to to try to see into the future better futuro así hacerlas to do the um the wishing and I think I could wish better in Spanish than in English but but but I'll but I'll try um dismantling would be the best thing that could happen I mean that's that we and when we spoke with with communities in in Romania about the possibility of the of an amicus and bringing their voices and they said we don't like the system and we don't you know we don't we're not we don't agree with the system and we don't like it and I said no we agree with we completely agree that it's unjust unfair opaque uh um etc but it shouldn't exist it shouldn't exist and I think that's a longer term let's put it that in the longer term I think for the short medium term which is something that is being talked about much much more is basically the that giving um granting states invested community and investment affected communities and individuals people the right to initiate claims against investors there's language like that that has already been been been been swirling in people's heads in Europe and and elsewhere and I think even just the discussions about that would change would have an effect those conversations would have an effect just saying well if you want to keep your system we're going to have to put this in and that would have a ripple effect in my opinion I don't want to take too much time but we can talk more we should we should meet again thank you beautiful and provocative although any final word you want to say about that I can question are you creo estoy de acuerdo con esa posición toda toda esta lógica que ha puesto en las manos del libre mercado la salud los alimentos y todo lo que ahora consideramos importante no entonces yo creo que hay que hay que ir por ese camino y empezar a desmontar el sistema pero también cuestionar a un nivel sistémico de eso no lo que los estados necesitan ahora soberanía es la oportunidad de poder decidir sin amenazas que es lo que necesita su población y es cato para terminar lo que decía vida lina es volver a campo es dar mirar el campo escucha os está empezando a valorizar más la comida el agua y hay que estar muy atentos con eso y darle todas las energías y los y los recursos no aquellas personas que antes en peru el salvador o en cualquier parte del mundo que se oponen a la minería son llamados anti desarrollo llamados criminales tiene mucho sentido ahora lo que planteaban o sea estaban luchando por lo que ahora necesitamos entonces yo concluiría con eso y bueno muchas gracias thank you so much Aldo and did Alina we we unfortunately only have two minutes left but is there any final on on some of the comments people have mentioned your fight against water privatization but any final sentence or so of of requests to the rest of us for how we can help but then i'll solve it or eso fueron frases de monsignor romero en una de sus homilías estamos conociendo hoy por hoy este sistema capitalista patriarcal machista y ahora depredador de nuestros bienes comunes no lleva en un en un aún callejón sin salida por supuesto que hay que generar mucha más conciencia en nuestra en nuestras comunidades y en nuestra en nuestra población en nuestra sociedad verdad y repito hay que cambiar como decía monsignor romero este sistema de raíz me quedo con esta frase that is a beautiful way to end here um gen i mean since gen is my colleague i could it's easier to limit your words but is there two sentences you want to end with gen before we we thank you all my first sentence as i agree with that alina and if we want adjust recovery we need it to be anti extractivist and we need to see the connections between i sds and the free trade agreements that are part of holding in place the system that doesn't allow us the true options for food sovereignty and people's indigenous sovereignty and and people self-determination and the water and health and diversity at the local level that is needed so building connections between movements i think that would be part of my hope right now beautiful thank you all so much um it's like a reunion here and we've also got some new people so it's part of this uh the idea of this webinar is to link new people together and so please do follow up with all of the organizations of the panelists and the cosponsors and finally again many thanks to the rosa luxembourg foundation so wishing you all well uh in this as we fight all of these evils that that have befallen us right now and um we look forward to continuing the conversation thank you