Enforcement of the (Mexican) Federal Law of Environmental Liability: PROFEPA v. Residencial Balvanera, SA de CV.

•    Relevant aspects of the trial, judgment and agreement.

•  The sentence and environmental damage repair and compensation agreement.

The Federal Law of Environmental Liability (LFRA by its acronym in Spanish), enacted in June 2013, marked a milestone in the Mexican environmental legal framework, especially in terms of its enforcement and access to justice [^{1, 6, 7, 9}].  In this article we will not address the law itself, which has been sufficiently done by several players, including major law firms with an environmental practice. Instead, we will focus on a recent trial and decision relevant to the LFRA enforcement: PROFEPA v. Residencial Balvanera, SA de CV. [^{13, 14}]. Moreover, considering that although the LFRA has been enforced before it has not been applied widely [^{10, 11, 12}].[1]

On December 2016, the Federal Attorney for Environmental Protection (PROFEPA by its acronym in Spanish) filed a lawsuit of environmental liability against Residencial Balvanera, SA de CV, a real-estate developer, related to its mega-project Balvanera Polo & Golf Club -800 hectares [^{5, 8, 13, 14, 15, 16}].  The lawsuit, grounded on the LFRA, was filed mainly due to the defendant change of forest land use (removal of vegetation) on 2 hectares -and interrelated environmental impacts- without prior authorization by the Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT by its acronym in Spanish) [^{12, 13, 14}].                          

The trial (docket number 52/2017), processed by the First District Court of the Twenty-Second Circuit was resolved as the defendant recognized its environmental liability agreeing with the PROFEPA to hold on to and environmental damage repair andcompensation agreement, hereinafter the Agreement, foreseen in the LFRA [^{12, 13, 14}].

Relevant aspects of the trial, judgment and agreement.

1. The Court’s granting, by request of the PROFEPA, of an injunction and interim measures to maintain the status quo, detention of goods involved on the environmental damages and detention of property to provide security for liability costs -an attachment of MXP $48,000,000 (USD $ 2,560,000).
2. The expedite conclusion of the trial under the Agreement between the parties.
3.  Measures of compensation and repair of environmental damage, plus economic sanctions, covenanted in the Agreement, of around MXP $ 10,600,00 (USD $570,000).
4.  PROFEPA ceased from criminal actions, and relative proceedings, beforehand filed against the defendant, as settled in the Agreement.
5. The defendant granted to PROFEPA a bond of MXP $ 7,000,000 (USD $ 370,0000) to guarantee compliance to the Agreement.  
6. Without prejudice to the Agreement, the defendant must prove to the Court the fulfillment of its obligations adopted therein; that is, non-compliance with the Agreement would have effects of non-compliance with the Court’s decision (a federal felony).
7.  It is proved in the facts the effectiveness of the legal actions of environmental responsibility, founded in the LFRA, to achieve in an expeditious way enforcement of the environmental legislation against its violation. Especially considering that in the traditional schemes adopted by PROFEPA its percentage of success is not positive [^{2, 3, 4, 17}]. The LFRA is another paper tiger.

 Agustín Bravo-Gaxiola.

México City. March 5, 2018.

References.

[1] Alvarado, A.  (2013). El nuevo paradigma de responsabilidad penal ambiental federal frente a las víctimas. http://www.ceja.org.mx/IMG/El_Nuevo_Paradigma.pdf

[2] Auditoría Superior de la Federación [ASF]. (2011). Auditoría de Desempeño: 11-0-16E00-07-0048 DE-120. Retrieved from https://www.asf.gob.mx/Trans/Informes/IR2011i/Grupos/Desa rrollo_Economico/2011_0048_a.pdf

[3] Auditoría Superior de la Federación [ASF]. (2012). Auditoría de Desempeño: 12-0-16E00-07-0342 DE-126. Retrieved from http://www.asf.gob.mx/Trans/Informes/IR2012i/Documento s/Auditori as/2012_0342_a.pdf

[4] Auditoría Superior de la Federación [ASF]. (2014). Auditoría de Desempeño: 14-0-16E00-07-0132 DE-159. Retrieved from https://www.asf.gob.mx/Trans/Informes/IR 2014i/Documentos/ Audit orias/2014_0132_a.pdf

[5] Ayuntamiento de Corregidora (2012). Gaceta Municipal 14. August 17, 2012.  Retrieved from http://www.corregidora.gob.mx/Documentos/2012-2015/transparencia/III/gaceta14.pdf

[6] Calvillo, G. (2015a). La inaplicación del régimen constitucional de responsabilidad por daño ambiental en el acto administrativo como violación de los derechos humanos.  Retrieved from https://archivos.juridicas.unam.mx/www/bjv/libros/9/4089/15.pdf

[7] Calvillo, G. (2015b). Sistema de justicia e implementación de la Ley Federal de Responsabilidad Ambiental. Retrieved from https://www.ijf.cjf.gob.mx/cursosesp/2015/DiploDeram biental/material/CALVILLO%20LEFRA%206%202015.pdf

[8] Gobierno de Querétaro. (2012). Periódico Oficial 47. August 24, 2012. Retrieved from http://lasomb radearteaga.segobqueretaro.gob.mx/2012/20120847-01.pdf

[9] Ley Federal de Responsabilidad Ambiental [LFRA]. (2013). DOF, June 07, 2013.

[10] PROFEPA. (2016a). Informe de actividades 2016. Retrieved from https://www.gob.mx/profepa/ documentos/informe-de-actividades-profepa-2016 or https://goo.gl/WEvTYm

[11] PROFEPA. (2016b). Juez Federal ordena por primera vez reparación del daño conforme a la Ley Federal de Responsabilidad Ambiental decretada en 2013. 1 pp. Retrieved (March 02, 2018) from http://www.profepa.gob.mx/innovaportal/v/8155/1/mx/juez_federal_orde na_por_primera_vez_reparacion_del_dano_conforme_a_ley_federal_de_responsabildiad_ambiental_decretada_en_2013.html

[12] PROFEPA. (2017). Juez Federal dicta primer sentencia judicial condenatoria por daño al ambiente en México conforme a la LFRPA. Retrieved (March 02, 2018) from https://www.gob.mx/profepa/prensa/juez-federal-dicta-primer-sentencia-judicial-condenatoria-por-dano-al-ambiente-en-mexico-conforme-a-la-lefra

[13] PROFEPA, Residencial Balvanera. (2017). Environmental damage repair and compensation agreement. [In the trial 52/2017: PROFEPA v. Residencial Balvanera, SA de CV]. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/BbYVEK

[14] PROFEPA v. Residencial Balvanera, SA de CV. (2017). Retrieved from https://goo.gl/azhDdX 

[15] SEMARNAT (2012). Oficio F.22.01.01.01/1291/12.  July 05, 2012.

[16] SEMARNAT. (2013). Oficio F.22.01.01.01/0293/13. February 22, 2013.

[17] Senado de la República. (2017). Gaceta de la Comisión Permanente. LXIII/2SPR-13/72375 (June 14, 2017). Retrieved from http://www.senado.gob.mx/index.php?ver=cp&mn=4& id=72375

---

[1] To know in detail the decisions in which the LFRA has been enforced, we filed before PROFEPA several requests of access to public information (1613100021118, 1613100021218 and 1613100021318).  The answer and related decisions will be available by mid-April.

A game-changer on environmental compliance (among other environmental matters): The Inter-American Court’s Advisory Opinion regarding the Environment.

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights recently (last February 7) made public its AdvisoryOpinion OC-23/17:  The Environment and Human Rights. State obligations in relation to the environment in the context of the protection and guarantee of the rights to life and to personal integrity – interpretation and scope of Articles 4(1) and 5(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights). (1) 

The Inter-American Court recognized the obligations derived from respecting and guarantee the rights to life and personal integrity in the context of the environmental protection -as human rights. In particular, it determined that States must (2):

·     prevent environmental damage, inside or outside its territory, which implies that they must regulate and supervise activities under its jurisdiction (in some cases beyond), carry out environmental impact studies, establish contingency plans and mitigate occurred damages;

·         act according to the precautionary principle against possible significant damages or irreversible to the environment, affecting the rights to life and to the personal integrity, even in the absence of scientific certainty;

·         cooperate in good faith with other States for protection against substantial environmental damage (transboundary);

·         guarantee access to information on probable environmental harms;

·         guarantee the right to public participation of the people, in the taking of decisions and policies that may affect the environment, and

·         guarantee access to justice, in relation to States obligations for environmental protection.

The Advisory Opinions of the Inter-American Court are of inordinate weight in Mexico (a game changer), because although they are not necessarily binding for the decisions issued by the jurisdictional bodies, if not being taken into account, the reasons why it is not done should be explained. (3)              

Furthermore, in the case in question, the Advisory Opinion - to mention some relevant points:

o   it “expands” the jurisdiction of the States in the case of transboundary damage to the environment and in relation to the causative agents thereof;

o   establishes specific, substantive and adjective contents in the environmental impact assessment procedure, including specific aspects of access to information and public participation;

o   expands access to justice (standing) in environmental matters and transboundary environmental damage.

Agustín Bravo-Gaxiola.

Mexico City. February 23, 2018.

(1) Until February 22, the Advisory Opinion is only available in Spanish. Soon it will be in English. 

(2) The following points are a translation-summary of the Inter-American Court’s communiqué on its Advisory Opinion.

(3) Tesis: (I Región)8o.1 CS (10a.) 2017.