Submission

Summary of the matter addressed in the submission:

The Submitters allege that Mexico has failed to effectively enforce the General Law of Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection (Ley General del Equilibrio Ecologico y la Proteccion al Ambiente-LGEEPA) in relation to the operation of the company Molymex, S.A. de C.V. (Molymex) in the town of Cumpas, Sonora, Mexico. The company processes residues generated in the smelting of copper by national and foreign companies to produce molybdenum trioxide, presumably causing damage and loss to human health and the environment. Specifically, the Submitters allege that Mexico has failed to effectively enforce the LGEEPA with respect to: (i) operation without environmental impact authorization, (ii) land use which is incompatible with the cattle raising and use in the area; (iii) preservation and sustainable use of the land; (iv) zoning for contaminating industries in Cumpas; (v) the return to the country of origin of hazardous waste generated under the rules of temporary importation; (vi) the importation of dangerous materials without ensuring compliance with the LGEEPA and liability for potential harm and damages. Lastly, the Submitters request the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) to prepare a report in accordance with Article 13 of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) regarding the Molymex case, because it refers to a matter related to the cooperative activities under the NAAEC and is contemplated in the North American Agenda for Action 2000-2002 which, the Submitters claim, would further the objectives of said Agenda.

Summary of the response provided by the Party:

In its response regarding the environmental impact requirements, Mexico asserts, among other things, that the Mexican Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources (Semarnat) is legally prevented from requiring Molymex to file an environmental impact statement because the relevant LGEEPA provisions came into effect 11 January 1982, and Molymex began operating in 1979. The Mexican response argues that because the environmental impact assessment is a preventive procedure, it must take place prior to the establishment of industrial sites and that the LGEEPA may not be applied retroactively. However, with regard to the Molymex expansion project, which took place in 1998, Mexico agrees that the environmental impact requirements were applicable at that time, and explains how those requirements were in fact applied. With regard to the plant’s air emissions, Mexico’s response indicates that Molymex obtained an operating license which was renewed on several occasions, most recently on 29 November 2000, and that the license establishes a set of rigorous conditions for the operation of Molymex. Overall, Mexico asserts that the information contained in its response demonstrates that there is no failure to effectively enforce environmental law in this case.

Names and citations of the environmental laws in question:

The General Law of Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection; NOM (Official Mexican Standard) -043-ECOL-1993 (Particulate matter from fixed sources); NOM-022-SSA1/1993 (Environmental health. Air quality with respect to sulfur dioxide); NOM-085-ECOL/1994 (fuels for direct and indirect heating equipment by combustion).

Submitter(s):

Academia Sonorense de Derechos Humanos, Domingo Gutiérrez Mendívil