Dr. Chris O'Connell:

I appreciate that. I wish to clarify that our two Guatemalan witnesses will read their statements in Spanish, followed immediately by the English version in order that all members hear it.

I thank the Chair and members for inviting the Irish Coalition for Business and Human Rights to this important session. The coalition is a network of civil society organisations, trade unions, lawyers and academic experts working in the area of business and human rights to bring about policy change to ensure human rights and environmental abuses are prevented from happening in the first place, and are properly addressed and remedied when they do occur. The coalition is made up of more than 20 members, including Trócaire where I work. It is a broad group of organisations coming from diverse perspectives, each of which sees the profound and urgent need to ensure that Ireland does not continue to turn a blind eye to what is happening in the supply chains of large transnational corporations.

What is happening? The abuse of human rights in the pursuit of profit by powerful corporations is a critical injustice of the 21 century. The corporate race for natural resources, facilitated and encouraged by states, has put millions of people around the world at risk of exploitation and abuse. The actions of irresponsible businesses are having devastating impacts, including violent evictions and displacement of communities from their land; environmental degradation and pollution causing the destruction of livelihoods; and the exploitation and harassment of workers.

Communities seeking to resist the actions of corporations and complicit states are facing growing levels of violence and intimidation, with indigenous environmental and lands rights defenders at particular risk. Those who denounce abuses relating to extractive industries, agri-business, infrastructure, hydroelectric dams and logging are facing brutal consequences, including killings, attacks, sexual violence, smear campaigns, criminalisation and repression. The committee will hear more about these impacts from my colleagues representing Trócaire’s partner organisations, the Council of the Mayan people and the Xinka Parliament, regarding both the impacts of business activities on communities and the risks and challenges associated with speaking out against those activities or seeking justice in the context of Guatemala, the country with the highest number, per capita, of killings of defenders in the world, according to the latest data from the NGO Global Witness. Nevertheless, it is worth noting some statistics to reflect the global, systemic nature of these abuses and attacks.

For example, Front Line Defenders, which is based in Ireland, reports that 324 human rights defenders were killed in 2024, with 59 killings verified as linked to their human rights work in challenging business interests. Global Witness data reveals that a shocking 2,253 defenders of land and the environment – the substance of life itself – have been killed or disappeared since 2012. Those raising their voices to defend people and the planet from abusive business practices also suffer non-lethal attacks, ranging from judicial harassment to surveillance, threats and attacks, both actual and virtual. The Business and Human Rights Resource Centre has tracked over 6,400 such attacks against people voicing concerns about business-related harm or risks since 2015, of which 660 took place in 2024. The top five most dangerous sectors all relate to natural resources.

It has been clearly established that EU and Irish companies are among those trampling on human rights, destroying the environment and polluting the atmosphere with greenhouse gases. The briefing paper I shared contains some examples of specific companies, but unfortunately the list is long. Despite the negative human rights impacts corporations can have, there remains a major gap in the regulation of international corporate activity by states, particularly regarding access to remedy for victims of human rights violations. The vast majority of human rights violations perpetrated by corporations go unpunished. In other words, corporate impunity is the norm. The size, influence and complexity of corporations, along with the transnational nature of much business, pose major challenges for states and affected people seeking to hold them to account. A lack of strong corporate accountability laws, alongside complicated corporate structures and convoluted supply chains make it nearly impossible to hold these companies accountable. There is ample evidence to state clearly that voluntary measures - in particular the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, UNGPs - are simply not working to address this situation. To pick just one study, the 2024 Irish Business and Human Rights benchmark report by Trinity College Dublin’s centre for social innovation revealed the top 60 countries in Ireland scored-----

John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Top 60 companies. You said "countries". The only reason I am correcting Dr. O'Connell is that the word "companies" is important.

Dr. Chris O'Connell:

Yes, absolutely. I thank the Cathaoirleach.

They scored 30% or less on their human rights policies when matched against the UNGPs.

While some countries have responded to this situation by introducing national legislation that imposes reporting or due diligence requirements on companies - this includes France and Germany, but Colombia and Mexico are also working on laws – the issue is that these laws are limited in scope or focus. Even regional laws, like the EU’s corporate sustainability due diligence directive, CSDDD - if they impose diverging standards for companies - can lead to an uneven patchwork of rules worldwide that make the situation more complex and unequal for affected people and companies, create loopholes for companies to escape responsibility, create regulatory uncertainty and incentivise investment in countries with lower protection standards.

Then we come to the case of the EU, which in 2024 passed its new CSDDD law, which I already mentioned, that requires the largest EU companies to undertake due diligence checks throughout their value chains on human rights and environmental impacts. This regional law represented a significant step towards justice and accountability. It was believed that it would lead to the EU formally bringing this experience and expertise to the negotiations on the binding treaty. Since then, however, the EU has bowed to corporate lobbying and geopolitical pressure and reversed course. Under the guise of simplification, the European Commission has instituted a full-scale rollback of corporate accountability frameworks. The general approach agreed by the Council and the European Parliament’s JURI committee report signal an intention to transform the CSDDD from a substantive regulatory tool into a paperwork-oriented tick-box exercise.

These EU developments have serious ramifications for the treaty process and the EU, including weakening the EU's credibility, as if it backtracks on due diligence and liability, its role in Geneva negotiations will diminish; encouraging a race to the bottom, as other states may follow the EU’s lead in diluting corporate accountability rules; and undermining synergy between regimes, as the treaty risks being forced to compensate for EU gaps, instead of building on strong regional standards. These developments at the EU serve to emphasise the importance of the UN treaty process.

The normative gaps that the UN Human Rights Council, HRC, Resolution 26/9 of 2014, which established the working group and the ongoing treaty process, was set up to address remain a problem. After 11 years, we have arrived at a promising draft treaty text which begins to address many of the key elements necessary to close those normative gaps, such as provisions to ensure access to justice and remedy for victims, including a duty to remove barriers to justice; protection of environmental and human rights defenders; duties placed on states to investigate, create effective regulatory authorities, and impose on companies duties to respect human rights, prevent abuses, and conduct effective human rights and environmental due diligence; and provisions on state co-operation and mutual legal assistance when cases cross borders.

Nevertheless, there are key areas of the text that need to be strengthened, among them protection of the procedural rights of individuals and communities, particularly indigenous peoples, to be consulted, access relevant information and be protected from imminent harm; rules on corporate liability, such as liability causing or contributing to human rights violations and abuses, including for parent companies; rules on jurisdiction to make sure victims of corporate abuse have an accessible venue to hear their claims; more gender-responsive language, particularly in due diligence provisions; and enhanced due diligence duties in conflict-affected areas. This last was highlighted by the recent report of Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese which detailed at least 1,000 corporate entities profiting from occupation and genocide in Palestine.

To conclude, I will emphasise two key points. The treaty process has momentum, a road map and supports it has never enjoyed before. As a result, the likelihood of having a treaty in some form has never been higher. The addition of a panel of international legal experts, the convoking of inter-sessional thematic dialogues, and a plan to conclude the process in 2027 are all highly positive developments. Dismissing this process, as some EU member states have done in the past, is even less appropriate now.

Nevertheless, when it comes to getting an effective treaty, we are at a real inflection point. As noted in the briefing paper, for many workers, civil society organisations, politicians and businesspeople, the catalyst for the push toward binding regulation of corporate behaviour came on 24 April 2013 with the collapse of Rana Plaza in Bangladesh when around 1,138 workers needlessly lost their lives in pursuit of profits for multinational corporations. We thought we had come a long way since then. Instead we find ourselves back in a context where political and business leaders are talking blithely about cutting red tape and simplification, like they are simple efficiencies and will not come at a huge cost to workers, indigenous peoples and the planet. That is not credible policymaking. Deregulation profits the powerful at the cost of the vulnerable; it always has and always will.

This new thinking presents a clear and real danger to the treaty process, with a number of rich states and the corporate lobby pushing back on many critical provisions and questioning why certain norms and legal devices, which have now been amply proven to represent barriers to justice and accountability, should be altered at all. We can see what is happening in the EU to its own flagship due diligence law. This thinking risks detracting from the very spirit and driving force that motivated the treaty process a decade ago, and it is magical thinking. The issues that brought about the post-Rana Plaza consensus - threats and attacks against workers and communities, environmental and climate harms, legal uncertainty for victims and companies - have not disappeared. If anything, they have worsened.

We need UN member states and politicians, those who profess to care about people and the planet, to seize this crucial opportunity to act now to back up their discourse and actively champion a binding UN treaty. Ireland has failed to do this up to now, but with the EU abandoning any moral leadership, it is time for us to send a clear message to the global south, human rights defenders like those with us today, and all right-thinking people that human rights matter and that we will defend them.

Ms Ramona Margarita Domingo Díaz:

I am grateful for the space. I wish the committee members a good evening.

The presence of mining companies and other extractive industries involved in metal mining and monoculture farming in Guatemala has had environmental, economic, social and human rights impacts that often translate into gender-differentiated impacts. Indigenous and rural women tend to suffer disproportionately, including through the loss of access to water and land, increased care and unpaid work burdens, greater risks of violence, including sexual violence, the criminalisation of women leaders and exclusion from decision-making spaces and economic benefits. These impacts are documented in cases such as those involving the Marlin, Escobal and Fenix mines. Many of our women leaders have been threatened, criminalised and violated for defending life. They have suffered personal threats, persecution, including of their children, defamation, arrest warrants and murder, among many other things. Denying the existence of indigenous peoples in territories where extractive projects are located has been a recurring strategy for intervening against these communities.

The violence perpetrated by public and private security agents against resistance movements complicates the effects and processes of women's struggles. We can see clearly that physical, psychological, economic and emotional violence is expressed in various ways. Extractive companies have had to develop retribution mechanisms to curb the strength of women. We women have felt the negative impacts of extractive companies more harshly. When the water is contaminated, we are the ones who walk further to find it. When crops no longer produce what we need, it is us who care for the children and the elderly with less food. While companies promise development, in reality they leave behind destruction and pain. Our communities have witnesses how these projects arrive with promises of employment and progress but leave behind pollution, social division, territorial conflicts, unemployment, deepening poverty and loss of sovereignty over our territories. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance and urgency for us that the binding treaty on business and human rights be approved and that everyone ensures the international accountability of companies and supports policies that demand respect for human, environmental and gender rights in all extractive activities because protecting our communities also means protecting the life of the planet.

Mr. Quelvin Otoniel Jiménez Villalta:

I thank the members of the parliamentary committee on foreign affairs. In Guatemala, the Maya, Garífuna and Xinca peoples are those who have suffered most from the irresponsibility and impunity with which many transnational corporations operate. Since the arrival of Canadian transnational mining corporations in our territories in 2003, we have been dispossessed of our land and suffered environmental degradation, fragmentation of the social fabric, repression, criminalisation, water grabbing, water contamination and migration. The threat that mega-mining poses to our peoples has forced us to defend our territory and demand respect for our rights. The companies' response has been to attack her legally, verbally and physically, leaving dozens of people injured and hundreds of men and women subjected to legal proceedings over the years, many of whom have been imprisoned. These companies have even kidnapped and killed our sisters and brothers.

Throughout our struggle for respect for our human rights, we have seen that the Guatemalan state has neither the will nor the capacity to prevent or sanction these violations. We have experienced at first hand the impossibility of achieving or obtaining justice in a country as small as Guatemala and with institutions as weak as they are. They are subject to the interests of rich and powerful transnational corporations.

On 27 April 2013, the head of security of a Canadian mining company, who is also a shareholder, fired shots and ordered shots to be fired at a peaceful demonstration in which the Xinca people demanded that our right to consultation be guaranteed. Several people were injured, six of them seriously. However, unable to find justice in Guatemala, we had to turn to the Supreme Court of British Columbia in Canada, where the company was finally prosecuted. Cases such as this are common around the world in countries with conditions similar to Guatemala, where many companies violate the rights of indigenous and peasant communities with total impunity.

The committee may wonder what this has to do with Ireland. The answer is simple. As long as there is no legally binding mechanism on companies in human rights at a global level, patterns such as the one I have described will continue to produce legal uncertainty, injustice and inequality in the world. One of the constant practices of transnational corporations is the failure to exercise due diligence in protecting the environment and human rights, especially the right to consultation and free prior and informed consent. This not only puts human rights at risk but also the company’s own investments, as their projects could be suspended in the future. For this reason, based on our experience, it is essential to approve the binding treaty on business and human rights in order to prevent thousands of conflicts and human rights violations around the world. The treaty is very important for all countries in the world because it could generate legal certainty, equity, equality and global justice by preventing large transnational corporations from evading their responsibility for human rights.

John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am struck by how many of the important words sound the same in English and Spanish. With the agreement of members, I will ask the Vice Chairman, Senator Ahearn, to take the Chair for a time after he has spoken, which I call him to do now.

Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the witnesses for their contributions and for the work they do. I refer to the very brave advocacy they do on behalf of their people in their community. Dr. O’Connell spoke about companies that go in and essentially do as they please because there is no due diligence. I do not know if he can name such a company. Is it possible to give an example of a company and what it did at the start, what laws it broke and how it did their business without any regard for the community, the environment or the region it went into? Can he talk about how that happened, give an example of the things it did that were wrong and give an example of its response to defenders who spoke out against them?

John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If we can resist naming names, obviously.

Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thought as much.

Dr. Chris O'Connell:

I thank the Senator for the question. I will ask Ms Quijano, who is joining us by video link, to come in after my remarks. Unfortunately, as the Deputy may have picked up, even if we could name particular companies, they would only be examples of a much wider trend. I do not know if it is clear to members of the committee that the two organisations represented at this meeting are from different parts of Guatemala. Nonetheless, we can hear the same recurrent themes in their statements. There is a particular additional element, legally speaking, when it comes to indigenous people. They have particular rights that are guaranteed under international instruments such as ILO convention 169, which has been mentioned. This convention gives countries the right to be consulted on projects that would affect the development of indigenous peoples in their territories. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples goes further by giving them the right to free prior and informed consent to any such project. There are recurrent violations and breaches across all of what we are call the extractive industries. Mining has been mentioned in particular cases, but this right is routinely violated in large-scale infrastructure projects such as hydroelectric dams, in agribusiness and in logging. Other laws, such as environmental laws, are frequently broken. The rarity with which environmental impact assessments are carried out before projects are greenlit and invested in is remarkable. Leaving that aside, the other big part of the problem is that there often are not the laws that there should be. This is what we are saying about the gaps that exist in national and regional laws and at international level. We have a set of voluntary guidelines, the UN guiding principles, that set out certain practices; for example, they provide that human rights due diligence should be carried out. Due to its voluntary nature, we find it is far more observed in the absence than in practice. I ask Ms Quijano to add something from her expertise.

Ms Gabriela Quijano:

I hope everyone can hear me well. I thank the committee for giving us this opportunity to discuss this important matter. I also want to say hola a Ramona y Quelvin. Les doy la bienvenida a Europa. Es un gusto escucharlos.

I wish to refer to a typical case of wrong-doing. I will use the example of a mining company because those were the examples that Mr. Jiménez Villalta and Ms Domingo Díaz raised and from which they suffer particularly in their territories. I have been a human rights lawyer and advocate on human rights for more than 20 years, 14 of which were with Amnesty International in its business and human rights team. Because of the nature of our work, we focused on countries all over the world so what I will say here is typical of Guatemala but it is also typical of pretty much any developing country - any global south country - in the world. One of the learnings I was shocked about initially - I no longer am - is how the pattern of abuse and the model of behaviour is so similar across the entire globe. I will set out what those abuses might look like.

First, local communities and indigenous peoples are given no information about plans to develop projects on their land, despite their right to determine how they want to live their lives and how they want to vet the notion of development and despite having rights over their territories and resources. They have no initial information. They are not consulted about the plans. Typically, they only get to know about a plan for a project being developed – we are talking about enormous infrastructure projects and enormous mining operations, so these are not minor projects - when they see the machines operating on the ground or when they see drilling for exploration purposes. Their right to information or participation in decision-making related to plans and projects that might affect their right to consultation and, for indigenous peoples, their right to free planning consent has already been violated at this point, when the company has not yet set foot there or its physical presence is still very small.

Once they start operating, and there has already been an infringement of rights, the company wants to patch things up. That is when it starts to build a farce of a consultation process. It might, or might not, try to rein in the local council or local politicians to support them in setting up something that looks like a consultation when we know this is already way too late. Even those consultation processes are typically highly defective. They are not done according to international law. There is plenty of guidance and standards about what an appropriate consultation looks like. This is how projects are imposed on indigenous people’s lands and on local communities’ lands. There is a lot of manipulation. It can be one-to-one manipulation. Typically, companies do not want to address issues with people as a collective. They do not want to meet with community representatives or communities as a whole. They like to try to strike a deal resident by resident. Perhaps the deal is about buying the land or gaining access to the land. When they do it one-to-one, they do not disclose information to other people as they go on doing their negotiations one-to-one. Typically, communities realise that one third of community members have already been approached and potentially lured into giving up their land or giving access to their land.

That is another breach of the rights of indigenous peoples, whose rights are held as a community or group.

Environmental and social impact assessments are typically requested and required in these projects but they are also highly defective. They are used mostly as a rubber stamp and not as a genuine tool to identify and prevent risks, and never to decide a project should not actually go ahead because the environmental and social impacts are too great. Under international standards, environmental and social impact assessments should be made in consultation with rights holders, but they hardly ever are. Typically, they are shared with rights holders only at the end of the process. Typically, they are 3,000-page technical documents that neither the rights holders nor anybody else can understand. They often cannot be read because they are in English or Spanish, which is often not the indigenous people’s language. In any case, even if they could read them, they would not understand them because the documents are highly technical and often produced in that manner for that purpose.

John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We probably need ten minutes given the translation but I have to move on to the next speaker. The contribution was pretty comprehensive and that is why I allowed it to continue. Senator O’Loughlin has just arrived. If she wants to catch her breath, I can bring another speaker in first. It is up to her.

Fiona O'Loughlin (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No. As the Chair knows, I have to get to our parliamentary party meeting, so I would really appreciate the opportunity to ask a question now if he does not mind. I apologise as I was at another meeting.

I commend our Guatemalan guests for their bravery and courage in standing up to big business. That is really important to say. As members of committees – this is my first time as a member of this committee – we learn a lot about things going on that we never hear about. I found it quite fascinating to read the submissions and learn about the excellent work ongoing in this area. While this work is going on in Ireland, it seems a different direction is being taken in the EU, unfortunately. I am interested in the witnesses’ views on that.

Dr. Chris O'Connell:

Is the Senator asking for our views on what is happening at EU level?

Fiona O'Loughlin (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes.

Dr. Chris O'Connell:

For many years, the Irish Coalition for Business and Human Rights has very much called for mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation at regional level. In fact, there is more to preventing human rights abuses and providing access to justice when they do occur than due diligence, but it is a significant and important measure. When given binding legislative status, it has real power. For that reason, we called for, advocated and welcomed the passing last year of the corporate sustainability due diligence directive, CSDDD, in the EU. We did so not without caveats but nevertheless saw it was a strong instrument that individual member states could transpose and possibly strengthen further. Instead, what we have seen, almost since the directive’s introduction and particularly since the last elections and the election of the Commission, has been a 180-degree turn from the general direction of travel of the previous Commission. That direction of travel was characterised by the push for the European Green Deal. We are now very much going in the opposite direction. That green deal is being ripped up piece by piece. There is pretty strong evidence to suggest that intense corporate lobbying has been a significant factor in the push in this direction. Fossil fuel companies, in particular, are increasingly associated with some of the aspects of the change to the so-called Omnibus I simplification package or legislation, but there are a range of other omnibus packages being pushed through along with other measures, such as a planned “28th regime”, which would create something almost like a special economic zone within the EU itself that corporations could opt into.

Recently, we heard in response to parliamentary questions that we had proposed that Ireland wanted to see better regulation and not deregulation. Also recently, President von der Leyen said that what the EU needed was deregulation. It is clear that this is what is happening. To say we want better regulation and not deregulation is simply not credible anymore. We are deeply concerned about it. Something like a harmonised civil liability regime that will provide some measure of access to justice for communities and defenders like those here with us today is essential. The levels of impunity we have discussed already and the ways to avoid accountability through complex corporate structures, placing assets out of the reach of relevant jurisdictions and so on are so strong that removing the harmonised civil liability regime in the EU’s directive is incredibly damaging and, I would say, fatal to its ambitions. Again, this is where we come back to the need for a binding treaty at UN level. Even the CSDDD, strong as it was, had a regional focus and certain gaps that would still have allowed a degree of impunity. The treaty offers the possibility of a level playing field, setting a global standard and having that standard binding and enforceable across all companies and jurisdictions, and that is what we are really hoping to see today.

Mr. Quelvin Otoniel Jiménez Villalta:

As members have heard from our speeches, which they also received in writing beforehand, there is extreme negligence in the actions of transnational corporations. We are representing cases that we have lived in the flesh. I am referring to corporate impunity. I have protection from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights because of attacks on me on the part of transnational companies because of the work I do providing legal advice on the human rights of my people.

This is a theme that does not put human rights alone at risk. The Xinka people stopped a mining project after four years of struggle. This is also about legal or judicial certainty for the companies. It is not just about human rights but also about judicial certainty. However, it is quite worrying because we seem to be going in the wrong direction, whereby transnational corporations are going to be able to operate with increasing impunity. They have the economic power to do so.

Fiona O'Loughlin (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

From the EU perspective, does Dr. O'Connell feel that this should be a focus for us when Ireland takes the Presidency of Europe? Does he think we can make a difference in that way?

Dr. Chris O'Connell:

Absolutely. Speaking about the binding treaty in particular, next week we will go to Geneva to attend the 11th session of the binding treaty based on the original human rights Council resolution in 2014. The EU has, on a rolling annual basis, put out signals that it will have a negotiating mandate and come to the table in good faith, but it has not done so and will not do so again this year. The feeling is that the EU is not interested or is only interested in limiting this process. We would like to see the EU come with a negotiating mandate but also with a clear and progressive position that actually addresses the human rights violations, the environmental abuses, and the destruction and the pollution of the atmosphere that is occurring in Guatemala and so many other places around the world. It would be positive if Ireland, during its Presidency, could make that a priority area. This process is heading towards an end, likely in 2027. We need UN member states that are prepared to put their hands up and say they care about human rights and the environment and believe in this treaty process. If Ireland in its Presidency, as well as unilaterally, were to send those signals and make that a priority, that would be extremely positive.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the witnesses for their presentations and for the work they have been doing in their specific actions and in their advocacy as they have described. It is important to acknowledge from social rights and environmental perspectives that indigenous peoples occupy a small portion of the world, but a huge portion of the world's biodiversity and environmental richness has been in areas where indigenous peoples have been the stewards of that land. That is a testament to the contribution indigenous peoples have been making to the understanding of what matters, what things are important, and what needs to be valued and protected.

I want to raise two matters. First, what needs to shift in the negotiations happening next week and the next one or two negotiations building to 2027? Dr. O'Connell mentioned the widening of the treaty to cover all businesses rather than the large corporations. Has that been used as an excuse to have weaker provisions? Is there any need to push back and say that stronger provisions are needed regarding larger corporations?

Second, it seems that Europe needs to move the dial on the enforceability issue. Dr. O'Connell might comment on how the enforceability was weakened in the omnibus legislation. I know that I and others were following these negotiations for years. We finally came up with something. The Minister, Deputy Dara Calleary, and others were there negotiating it, and suddenly, in two months, we have this fast-tracked omnibus Bill that seems to take an axe to much of it. Considering some of those components of enforceability, how do we move this past an aspiration?

I ask Mr. Jiménez Villalta and others about the importance of enforceable measures. He has described specifically the use of legal instruments or intimidation through legal instruments by corporations to criminalise indigenous peoples on their own land. He mentioned that, even with the current government in Guatemala being more willing, there is a difficulty. Perhaps he might comment on things like the investor-state dispute settlement, ISDS cases. I know investor-state cases have been taken against Guatemala to perhaps intimidate governments from taking regulatory steps and measures and even enforcing their own laws against corporations. We know those kinds of international instruments are being used in a way by companies to make it harder for countries to enforce their own laws, yet we do not have a comparable international instrument which is a binding treaty and enforceable. How important is a counterbalance to the kinds of instruments that are being used and abused, sadly, particularly by mining and extractive industries?

Will Mr. Jiménez Villalta and Ms Quijano, if she wants to speak on this, comment on his concerns about the near future, particularly in a period when it seems that mining has a competitive rush on minerals and precious minerals? That is a sector that maybe needs specific and strong measures and actions, and accountability where the minerals are being used, which we know is often Europe. France and other countries are holding seminars about where they are going to take the minerals from. It is important to track that and ensure that we have accountability at the point of use of these precious minerals and not just at the point of extraction.

Dr. Chris O'Connell:

I will briefly comment and then pass to Ms Quijano and perhaps Mr. Jiménez Villalta.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

To Mr. Jiménez Villalta maybe first.

Dr. Chris O'Connell:

I can pass to Mr. Jiménez Villalta first.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Not from Dr. O'Connell. I just know I had specific questions for him.

Dr. Chris O'Connell:

Regarding negotiations and what needs to shift, I might ask Ms Quijano on enforceability and the issues of scope, which are the subject of ongoing discussion. For us, the focus on transnational corporations is key. That should be the priority. There is an argument that all business needs to internalise the practice and principles of human rights and environmental due diligence. That is key. We should not be weighing up how much human rights violation and destructive is acceptable versus how much profit. That is not a credible conversation. Regarding what needs to shift, we have and we are moving towards a strong text. What we need now is political backing for that, or at the very least less political opposition. States that care about and put human rights front and centre in their foreign policy should be behind this process and should ensure, through whatever means that are at their disposal, that they do not block this process so that we get a strong treaty.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Should we ask the EU not to block in the case of Ireland?

Dr. Chris O'Connell:

Yes, exactly. Ms Quijano might come in quickly then we will pass to Mr. Jiménez Villalta.

Ms Gabriela Quijano:

I am sorry about before. I did not realise it was five minutes but I will be very brief. With regard to what needs to shift, one thing I wanted to mention is that at the treaty negotiation week, initially the impetus was for the regulation of transnational companies. A lot of debate happened around that issue, with many states and industry bodies saying this was an unfair targeting of a set of companies. They would primarily point at the western world and the richer countries because that is where most of the transnational companies come from. It was stated that all companies should be targeted and that this was the approach of the UNGPs, etc. When some organisations started saying that, okay, it should be all companies or there should be a statement that this applies to all companies, even though some provisions more distinctively apply to transnational companies with transnational activity, then the pushback was that this was not fair because small and medium-sized enterprises should not be burdened with the same obligations as transnational companies, their operations are by nature only domestic, etc. These arguments are not being raised in good faith. I just wanted to mention that, and many of us in civil society think the treaty should make statements about all companies, which is very much line with the UNGPs. However, when it comes to the alternative provisions, they really should target transnational companies, transnational activities and global supply chains because that is where the biggest normative gaps in international law lie.

With regard to enforcement, at the moment the treaty is addressing it in two manners. One is by imposing obligations on states to create their own competent bodies to monitor-----

Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Could Ms Quijano conclude in the next ten to 20 seconds? Then we will go to Mr. Jiménez Villalta.

Ms Gabriela Quijano:

-----competent authorities by treaty and by state parties and also with a monitoring mechanism of the treaty itself.

Mr. Quelvin Otoniel Jiménez Villalta:

I thank the committee. We definitely have clear examples of how these transnational corporations use intimidation against indigenous communities in Guatemala. There has been a particular legal case and a ruling in the constitutional court in Guatemala in favour of the communities but the company has intimidated local communities and also the government using ISDS as a threat. They are threatening that if the court ruling suspended mining operations, the company would then bring an ISDS case against the Guatemalan state. These companies also use the economic elites within Guatemala to pressure the state with destabilisation of the government, particularly during this initial presidential election period. What this reflects is that an international binding treaty could bring some degree of balance in these very unequal power relations between these corporations and communities on the ground.

Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the witnesses for giving their testimonies of the abuse in their communities. It is important to stress that what human rights defenders are doing in Guatemala and other parts of the world in defence of the climate is something that benefits all of us. The witnesses are at the front line of that. I recognise that the Irish Government has been funding, through partners like Trócaire and Front Line Defenders, a huge amount of protection work for human rights defenders. That is why it is so important that, on the one hand, we fund protection but, on the other, we have to match that with our commitment to the UN binding treaty, so we are not providing this protection funding and, at the same time, not matching the legislative piece.

I am really concerned about the rollback at EU level and the deregularisation that is called the simplification agenda. As Senator Higgins mentioned, it was long fought for over years and years and at the drop of a hat, this all changed. I am particularly concerned about the access to justice piece but also the burden it is placing on local civil society groups and human rights defenders and the burden of proof that a company is, in fact, doing something wrong.

I would love to hear a bit more from Dr. O'Connell about why the treaty is so important and a little more from Ms Domingo Díaz about her experience as a woman human rights defender. She spoke a little bit about the differential impact it has for women, particularly around the targeting, the sexual violence and the high rates of defamation for women who are human rights defenders and the specific impact that has for her.

It is also really important for everyone in the room to be cognisant of the fact that the number of human rights defenders killed increases every year. That is really shocking and horrifying.

Dr. Chris O'Connell:

With regard to the importance of this treaty, in the briefing we have highlighted several elements as being key. Where we are now is with a hopeful text but we are still concerned about the process and the possibility, as happened with the corporate sustainability due diligence directive, of corporate capture and interference. It is really important for states that are strongly in favour of multilateralism and human rights to speak up. This is the moment. This process has been a long time coming but there is momentum and hope behind it, as I said in my opening statement. However, it is also precarious because, as we have seen, when binding regulations start to crystallise at whatever level, opposition becomes very strong. That is really important.

A key element of this is reducing these barriers to justice. On access to justice, Mr. Jiménez Villalta has talked about the case they had to take in the Canadian courts in British Columbia to get a form of access to justice for a clear human rights violation. There had been shootings of unarmed peaceful protestors by the security staff of the mining company and yet there was no possibility of justice in Guatemala. The barriers they had to jump to finally get some measure of justice in the Canadian courts were huge. One of them is the legal doctrine of forum non conveniens, which says that even when a country legally has jurisdiction, it can opt out of it if feels there is a more convenient jurisdiction. In this case, the company argued that Guatemala was the better place to get justice while, at the same time, the head of security for the mining company was allowed by the Guatemalan state to leave prison, leave the state and evade justice.

One can see the contradiction right there. The burden of proof was mentioned. There is, right now, a provision in the treaty text what would revert the burden of proof and put it on the company. In the case of the Xinka Parliament, what they have found relates not only to the power but also the information around their case, such as the pollution of water with arsenic. The company has far more information than the Guatemalan state when it comes to that. It is recognising, in that text, the power imbalance and the information asymmetries, and taking steps to address that. Those sorts of measures that would reduce those barriers to justice are key.

Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Before Ms Ramona Margarita Domingo Díaz comes in, does Dr. O'Connell believe that Ireland is a country that promotes human rights and environmental protections? Have we taken a strong enough stance thus far when it has come to the treaty negotiations?

Dr. Chris O'Connell:

No. We have not taken a stance. There has been a continual reliance on the need for an EU negotiating mandate to formally enter negotiations, which is the case. On the other hand, other EU member states such as France have spoken at the sessions. They have not formally negotiated but they have made suggestions and shared experiences during part of that process. States have also defined public positions with regard to the binding treaty. We know through facilities such as the friends of the chair of the process, of which both France and Portugal are part, there is a more informal, supportive network. There are options and ways that Ireland can demonstrate its support.

Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Up to this point, Ireland has not made a public statement or done any explicit support for this treaty.

Dr. Chris O'Connell:

We have had responses to parliamentary questions where there have been statements broadly supportive of a treaty, but very much directed back to the EU at all stages.

Ms Ramona Margarita Domingo Díaz:

I raise the case of violations of human rights of women, especially indigenous women in Guatemala. These abuses are very strong because as women, and above all, specifically as indigenous women, we have suffered the violation of our rights by these transnational companies in the west of the country and in the east of the country. There have been sexual attacks and rapes of our sisters who have raised their voice to protect our territories. There has been criminalisation, legal persecution and the State, instead of complying with ILO Convention 169, which the state has ratified, there is repression against us. As women, we are the most affected by contamination. This is why we have raised our voice.

As women who give life, we can see how Mother Earth suffers with these extractive industries. As indigenous peoples, in our cosmovision, Mother Earth has life that we should respect. It is really important for us women to have binding treaties and binding legislation that can support our rights as indigenous women. There are three different indigenous groups in Guatemala: Maya, Xinka and Garifuna. We are looking for our rights as women across the board to be supported. We thank Ireland for its support in all of these processes.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the witnesses and the interpreters, particularly those who have travelled. I will try to keep my questions brief to get concise answers. In relation to the situation in Guatemala, a lot of the examples that have been given have identified issues of intimidation and pollution related to extractive industries. Has this resulted in the displacement of people, whole communities or even parts of communities?

Mr. Quelvin Otoniel Jiménez Villalta:

Yes. In the particular case of our territory, one whole community has become a ghost community. A total of 130 families had to leave because the mining impacts practically destroyed their homes. The community was divided in two because there were such huge cracks that the land practically swallowed the community. There has been no reparation on the part of the company. Instead it donated $15,000 as humanitarian aid, but with no accountability or recognition of its responsibility. A sum of $15,000 cannot get more homes or another community. The lives and livelihoods of these families have been destroyed.

Ms Ramona Margarita Domingo Díaz:

In our case, in the west of the country, there has also been forced displacement. It is a new form of exile. We have also had cases where explosions from mining exploration have caused cracks in people's homes. This means they are forced to migrate, often to the USA. It has caused social division within families. This is a corporate strategy to divide communities where some are in favour of the mining project and others are against. This also causes displacement, not just because of the damage to people's homes but also because rivers contaminated with mining chemicals impacts on the fertility of the soil because of mining. In these situations, where there is no water and no fertile soil, people have no choice but to migrate to look for ways to live.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will go back to the treaty. This is primarily directed at Dr. O'Connell but anyone who wants to take it can. There has been a fair discussion of a legally binding treaty at an international level. What does that look like? What is the mechanism for seeking redress under such an international treaty?

Dr. Chris O'Connell:

Again, I may call on Ms Quijano to come in with her expertise. As things stand, the text of the draft treaty contains provisions for administrative, civil and criminal liability. Legal discussions are ongoing as to the precise character, nature and contours of how those would be decided. As Ms Quijano mentioned, the treaty foresees the creation of supervisory authorities at national level to monitor its implementation and administer administrative sanctions. This is as well as reducing the barriers to justice in order that civil liability cases can be brought without strategic procedural defences blocking and being used to draw out proceedings over years or even decades and, as I mentioned, criminal legal proceedings for the most serious human rights violations. I will pass to Ms Quijano to see if she has anything-----

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Before you do so, and Ms Quijano may pick it straight up from here as well, if I understand it correctly, while the treaty would be multinational and international, the redress mechanisms and the arbiters would be in each sovereign state that is party to the treaty. Is that correct?

Dr. Chris O'Connell:

That would be the primary mechanism. There has remains some hope that the treaty could lead to the creation of an international tribunal. My understanding is that the current text does not provide for that specifically but might leave the door open to it being established in the future. Does Ms Quijano want to come in? There are two minutes.

Ms Gabriela Quijano:

One of the particularities of the treaty is that access to remedy would be secured at a state level. What is additional in the treaty is that it would open up or guarantee opportunities to seek remedy in the home states of multinational companies and in other jurisdictions that are not traditionally the jurisdictions where victims would go, for instance, where the acts or omissions leading to the abuses took place. These are often not in the place where the harm was felt but in the state where multinational companies are based or where they or their subsidiaries, or members of the supply chain, committed the acts that led to the abuse. That is one of the added values of the treaty.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have time for just one brief question. This has been very useful and it is important that momentum continues behind it, but it occurs to me that in many instances the human rights abuses might be five or six companies downstream from the big well-known corporation that has a shiny brochure with corporate social responsibility and so on. That corporation might subcontract to another company, which subcontracts to another company that procures material from another company that is involved in exploitative practices. Maybe the treaty already addresses that, but I imagine companies deliberately insulate themselves at times.

Ms Gabriela Quijano:

One of the things that the treaty creates, and we as a civil society are pushing for it to become better, is access to information and disclosure by companies of that sort of business relationship. That has been going very well so far. It is just a little proposition but is one of the first steps towards bringing and consolidating those contexts is to have access to information about corporate structures, the nature of corporate global supply chains and who is who and who commands whom.

The other thing to say is that access to remedy would also be guaranteed through this treaty in the host state where these companies that are far removed from their big glossy company headquarters operate. We would also add the possibility for remedy where the company sourced from these smaller or local companies, or where they have command or some control over these companies where they are based, which is the home state or other state where they conduct their operations. I will leave it at that.

Cathy Bennett (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the witnesses. I also welcome and thank all the translators, who I understand have a hard job.

The document, A Time for a Treaty, states it is a well-established fact that:

EU and Irish companies are involved in human rights violations and environmental damage including modern slavery, land grabs, child labour, oil spills, deforestation, attacks on human rights defenders, and violence against women.

This is despite thousands of trade and investment agreements being agreed beforehand, according to that document. Was there never any protection put in place within those trade agreements to prevent any of this happening?

Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Who would you like to take that?

Cathy Bennett (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will go with Ms Domingo Díaz or Mr. Jiménez Villalta.

Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

While they answer, Deputy Ó Laoghaire will take the Chair.

Mr. Quelvin Otoniel Jiménez Villalta:

From our side in the Americas, there are some instruments in the UN system around human rights that relate to corporations, but they are voluntary; they are not binding. Canada, also in the Americas, does have a policy on business and human rights but, again, it is voluntary. These voluntary mechanisms allow corporations discretion in whether to apply these policies. There is nothing binding to oblige corporations to comply with human rights. There are some mechanisms within the World Bank, for example, around funding, where some human rights might have to be guaranteed to access certain types of funding but, again, that is not going to apply to all corporations.

Cathy Bennett (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That answers my question. I thank Mr. Jiménez Villalta.

In relation to those human rights that should be incorporated in legislation, will this treaty affect the occupied territories Bill that we are trying to progress in Ireland in relation to corporations being unable to do land grabs and sell products from the Palestinian State?

Dr. Chris O'Connell:

I can start into that and maybe Ms Quijano might come in as well. One of the weaknesses in the current treaty text, or one of the areas of concern that we would highlight, is the question of enhanced duties for corporations in conflict-affected areas. One of the texts that has been proposed is to include in that definition areas of illegal occupation such as the occupied territories. The idea, and this is already within the UN guiding principles but, as we have mentioned, those are voluntary in nature, is that corporations carrying on operations within those sorts of contexts would need to carry out enhanced human rights due diligence. There would also be a requirement, particularly in those cases, not to even begin or pursue their operations in situations where it cannot be guaranteed that there will not be complicity or a contribution to violations that may amount to international crimes. This is very much the content of the recent report by UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese titled, From Economy of Occupation to Economy to Genocide, which I referenced in my opening statement. That is one area that the treaty could be stronger on and would make an important contribution.

Cathy Bennett (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will it not be included in the treaty?

Dr. Chris O'Connell:

We have an ongoing negotiation. If countries such as Ireland were to speak up in favour of stronger measures on that, that would be welcome. This is an ongoing negotiation. Ms Quijano may have something to add on that.

Ms Gabriela Quijano:

There is a provision currently in the draft legally binding instrument that addresses people living in vulnerable situations. It includes such groups as rights holders living in situations of conflict and occupation. In those cases, companies should do enhanced or more rigorous due diligence. That is what we have got so far. It is quite a difficult provision to have and retain, and it remains contested. As Dr. O'Connell said, we need more support.

There was an attempt initially to have companies expressly required to comply with international humanitarian law but there was a lot of push-back, particularly by the industry lobby. It did not make the more recent iterations of the draft but we would like to see that be reintroduced in the draft treaty.

Cathy Bennett (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Ms Quijano. I have another question in relation to sustainability. One of the goals within the treaty is sustainability. How would sustainability work in other countries? We are being told that Mercosur is going to start exporting meat to Ireland but I am wondering about the other countries. How is it sustainable that meat would be imported from South America to Ireland? I do not think that would be sustainable. What are the witnesses' thoughts on that?

Dr. Chris O'Connell:

In terms of the text and environmental sustainability more broadly, another area of concern that we have highlighted is in relation to environmental and climate justice. This process began, as we mentioned, 11 years ago in a slightly different political context, if not, an atmospheric one. Climate change was very much real then but not necessarily broadly accepted as such or front and centre of the agenda. As the process has evolved, it has been recognised that there is a bit of a gap in the draft text, as it is, on that piece. In particular, it is a concern that there was a specific provision in a previous draft for the recognition of the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. That explicit provision has been removed in the current draft but there are proposals to reinsert it. We would very much support its reintroduction.

In general, climate action is not really very strongly present in the draft text but it is something that we would like to see strengthened. Referencing back to what is happening in Europe, we see the dilution of the behavioural duty of the climate transition plans in the omnibus proposal to amend the corporate sustainability due diligence directive. That, again, is worrying. As Mr. Jiménez Villalta mentioned, we are going in the wrong direction in a lot of these things, denying the reality of what is happening in the atmosphere and what is happening on the ground in the sites where minerals, etc., come from.

To mention something else worth highlighting, Senator Higgins earlier referred to critical minerals. We need a critical approach to critical minerals. What exactly is critical? What is actually needed for a green and just transition? A reason study from a UK NGO suggested that only 20% of what the UK has classified as "critical minerals" are actually critical for a green transition. There is also a rush, as has been mentioned, toward these minerals - it is a new market - as opposed to looking at what do we actually need and how can we take the minimum that we require to transition away from fossil fuels, and do so in a way that does not damage communities such as those represented here.

Brian Brennan (Wicklow-Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I offer my sincere apologies; I was speaking in the Chamber. I would like to make the point that this discussion is totally engaging and we are not giving respect to the people coming in when we are having a debate at the same time. It is not the Leas-Chathaoirleach's fault.

Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Deputy mean the debate in the Dáil Chamber?

Brian Brennan (Wicklow-Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Exactly. Key people such as the witnesses, who have put in such an effort to get here, should be given time and respect. The system is driving me mad.

Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is noted.

Brian Brennan (Wicklow-Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am a new politician and before that, I spent an awful lot of time in Asia. I was in Asia at the time of the Rana Plaza incidents in Bangladesh. For me, it was very much a 9/11 moment. I knew exactly where I was, the effect of it and what it meant to the people there but the fright I got was the reaction from the people in Asia because they said at least this one was public. People were not told about incidents that had happened if you went back ten or 15 years ago. It was such a devastating incident that happened.

Moving on to Guatemala, and I apologise I was not here earlier, where are we in terms of corporate and government responsibility in Guatemala? I understand all the issues; I have seen them first hand in Asia and what the witnesses are saying has been replicated. That is the point I am making. It is a hugely interesting subject but can we discuss Guatemala itself?

Where are we with the EU treaty? We also have to have corporate responsibility right across the world. This is first question is on Guatemala. It may have been brought up before. The witnesses can share it; I do not mind.

Mr. Quelvin Otoniel Jiménez Villalta:

Corporate responsibility in Guatemala does not exist. The economic lead of the country has a preferred phrase about legal certainty but they only look for legal certainty when it suits them. They try to keep control of justice and judicial bodies in Guatemala.

The Xinka people achieved a historic court ruling. A precedent was set in the constitutional court by a case around a mining company. However, one of the magistrates who gave that ruling is now in exile from the country because the economic leads of Guatemala cannot forgive this ruling which showed up how the institutions in Guatemala are weak in regulating mining. The ruling proved there is no monitoring of mining activity in the country on the part of the state and there is no corporate responsibility. In fact, the state does not have the capacity to even follow up or monitor companies, and even less to be able to sanction them. Rather, the state is subject to the interests of transnational corporations.

To finish up, as regards the binding treaty, the Xinka people have asked President Arévalo - we had a meeting on 3 September this year - that the Guatemalan state take a stronger role in the negotiations around the binding treaty. Representatives of the Xinka community have another meeting with the president tomorrow and will reinforce this ask to take a stronger role in the negotiations.

We have also seen that the constitutional and supreme courts go back on the previous recognition of indigenous rights in the country. They have rolled back on those at the petition of transnational corporations.

Ms Ramona Margarita Domingo Díaz:

As my comrade said, there are no legal certainties around our struggles as indigenous people in Guatemala. Instead, on the part of the state, we see and face oppression because of the co-opting of the justice system and other state bodies. We see the rights of indigenous people repressed, leaders and members are jailed and many human rights defenders are in exile outside the country or have had to go to other countries to get justice. There is no responsibility regarding the guarantee of human rights for those of us who are engaged in defending our territories.

Brian Brennan (Wicklow-Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Briefly, do the witnesses feel that will change after 3 September?

Mr. Quelvin Otoniel Jiménez Villalta:

No.

Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Thank you, Deputy Brennan. That concludes the first round of questions. We might have a brief second round, if that is agreeable, with maybe four minutes each if people want to contribute. We will start with Senator Stephenson.

Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We heard how awful the situation is and of the over-reach and human rights violations of these transnational companies and the impact of their development agenda in the witnesses' countries.

It would be interesting to hear from the witnesses what they think, and if it is indeed possible, to do the work they do with their communities in a positive way. They have spoken about free, informed and prior consent. Will the witnesses lay out a pathway for how, if I was running a company and wanted to engage in the communities, that can be done in a positive way? There will be certain actors and lobbyists who will say that the damage to the community is just the cost of doing business. That is not something I agree with. Can we present a picture where it is possible to do business in a way that is empowering for both the company and communities?

Ms Ramona Margarita Domingo Díaz:

From our cosmovision and spirituality, we do not want this corporate harm to our lives and the Mother Earth. A start would be consultation and a respect for free determination of indigenous peoples over our territories and to take our decisions into account. That would be a start. However, we do not even get that. Projects are imposed on us. Communities should be able to decide. There should always be respect for life and our health, which we see so many impacts on, and to avoid pollution. Ultimately, as Maya people we say "No" to these extractive industries that take our lives away.

Mr. Quelvin Otoniel Jiménez Villalta:

The key word here is "consent". The free, prior and informed consent is at absolute utmost importance in any project or investment in development in communities. Companies think if they build a road, school or health centre that will be a benefit to communities. However, these are minor benefits. We had a case of a hydroelectric dam in Mayan territory where there was an agreement between communities and the company. They asked that the company comply with care for the land and water. The community said that they have looked after this water and these forests and that they have a right to a share in the benefits and an actual share in the shares of the company - a percentage - so that the community could see some real benefits. However, the company put obstacles in their way. They tried to develop different types of investment plans instead of handing over the shares. The community said, "No, we want our percentage." At that point, the company broke the entire process of negotiation.

Brian Brennan (Wicklow-Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On green transition, I am hugely interested in this. How can we even discuss that when we are literally talking about people that are putting the dollar before abuse, violation, health and safety and deaths? How can we go to that area? The overall question is, how can Ireland help? I am not being patronising by that. Ireland has stood up before. I was lucky enough to be at the UN General Assembly. I met a lot of leaders and foreign ministers over there. Ireland is noted. We might be small, but we are loud. I am interested to hear how we can help. I know the treaty is where witnesses want to go. We wanted a treaty in relation to Gaza and everyone did not come together when we got to UN level.

Dr. Chris O'Connell:

We need a green transition and we need it urgently. We need to get off fossil fuels. That much is clear. The problem is that we have a system that prioritises profit and environmental abuses over human rights. We have corporate impunity and no accountability systems. Therefore, shifting from carbon intensive extractive activities to less carbon intensive extractive activities but within the same system is not going to address the sorts of abuses that we have been talking about today. We are going to continue with the breaches of human rights, criminalisation and attacks on defenders because that system is going to continue. That is why with the treaty and other legislation - the Deputy mentioned the EU and it is now rolling back on its due diligence legislation - we need to change that system. As Ms Díaz referenced in her opening statement, in the European Parliament this week, if we do not have a system that values the Earth and human beings above all else, we are always going to back in this situation. It will just change from which mineral or which fuel, etc. However, for those on the ground they experience it as a continuation, not a transition. That is important.

On what Ireland can do, there are some suggestions in the briefing. We have tried to make clear that there is space and scope for Ireland to be a champion. Other EU member states have stepped up on this issue. Ireland can and should do the same. We should begin by developing a clear position on the treaty; there has not been one. We are broadly saying positive things without any specific referring back to the EU, but the EU's leadership on this is highly questionable given what is going on there at the moment.

That is a first step. Coming to the session at the beginning of next week, staying for the week and contributing would be positive signs. It may not have binding force in terms of being a textual proposal but the message it would send to the global south, to the communities like those represented here, would more than make up for the lack of legal enforceability of those proposals. I propose those two things as a starting point. We call upon this committee and its members to write to an Tánaiste and Minister for foreign affairs and call on Ireland to put this into place, establish a clear political position on the treaty and demonstrate outwardly that this is something that matters to Ireland.

Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If there are no further questions, I will offer our witnesses a minute each if there is something they have not had the opportunity to say or some contribution they would like to make to conclude before I adjourn the meeting. We will start with Dr. O'Connell.

Dr. Chris O'Connell:

To come back to why Trócaire and other members of the Irish Coalition for Business and Human Rights are focusing on the treaty, it is because, as Senator Stephenson said, we are there with our partners in the communities. These are the people with whom we work day in, day out, and they are the ones who are experiencing this in their daily lives, as has been mentioned here. It is very easy at times with some of these corporate value chains to see these problems as being very distant but here we have two people in the same room who are telling the committee this is what their lives are like and about the persecution they are experiencing. This is something we have the privilege of having access to far more often and so we hope members of this committee and the Irish Government would share that care for them and the impacts they are suffering.

Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Would Ms Gabriela Quijano like a minute to give some concluding remarks?

Ms Gabriela Quijano:

One thing I wanted to also reflect in conclusion is that when we talk about human rights defenders or environmental and human rights defenders, we need to remember that these are people who did not necessarily want to become defenders. If companies were operating in an appropriate manner, be that by conducting consultations, respecting proper and informed consent and leaving if consent is not given, and respecting rights like Ramona Margarita Domingo Díaz was saying, there would be a lot fewer human rights defenders but that is not necessarily a bad thing because these people are living - and want to live - their normal, everyday lives in peace. They did not necessarily want to take up these battles that put them at so much risk. Protecting human right defenders is absolutely critical but it is important that we do not have more and more human rights and environmental defenders because companies and governments are not doing the right thing. People need to be allowed to live in peace with the confidence that their rights are being respected in the first place.

Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Ms Gabriela Quijano. Would Ms Ramona Margarita Domingo Díaz like to make some concluding remarks?

Ms Ramona Margarita Domingo Díaz:

I thank the committee very much for the space, for listening to us and listening to the current situation in Guatemala. In conclusion, I ask the committee members to keep supporting us as Ireland has been doing so that our wealth will not continue to be taken, so that we will not continue to live through these abuses and violations, and that our water and land will not be taken away to make others rich. We ask for the committee's support in protecting the defenders of territory, in protecting a future of dignified life so that there can be real participation by all people, that our rights to a dignified life are respected and that Mother Earth, including our rivers, is respected. It is so important that Mayan children are able to dream of a future and that women are not criminalised for defending their water, for example. It is so important to listen to the Mayan people, to our cosmovision, to our right to actual free determination and to note that the defence of territory is not an act of resistance but is an act of love for life itself.

Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Thank you. Mr. Quelvin Otoniel Jiménez Villalta may like to have the final word.

Mr. Quelvin Otoniel Jiménez Villalta:

I thank the committee members very much for listening to us and for their interest in the reality we are living through. It is not only true for us as indigenous communities in Guatemala but for people around the world. We have been talking here about the importance of protecting human rights through this binding treaty but the treaty can also protect the rights of Mother Earth and create conditions to protect the environment so that we can all stop losing our quality of life. The impunity with which these corporations are acting is killing life and biodiversity around the world. It is against the very life of the world. This is not just about the future generations of indigenous communities but about all of us on this planet.

Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank our witnesses for being here today. I thank Dr. Chris O'Connell, Ms Ramona Margarita Domingo Díaz, Mr. Quelvin Otoniel Jiménez Villalta and Ms Gabriela Quijano for their useful contributions. It is important they know that the committee will take their contributions and recommendations and will discuss them in private and take action from those. I also thank the interpreters, without whom this meeting would not have been possible. I am sure it was a difficult meeting to interpret but I thank them for that. The meeting is now adjourned until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 21 October 2025 when the committee will meet in public session.