Climate Change

10 environmental successes from Latin America in 2018

  This year was characterized by triumphs such as the creation of legal protections and the establishment of policies favorable to the environment and human rights in the region. Rarely in a single year do we see so many precedent-setting institutional advances. What follows are 10 stories we applaud from 2018: 1. For the first time, the Inter-American Court recognized a healthy environment as “fundamental” In its first time speaking on the subject, the Court concluded that a healthy environment is an autonomous right, “fundamental to the existence of humanity.” The relationship between the environment and human rights may sound obvious, but until February of this year, when the Court’s opinion was made public, there were no precedents of this magnitude recognizing the link. The opinion responds to a query made by Colombia. In it, the Court also recognizes that climate change impacts the enjoyment of human rights, especially among the most vulnerable populations. The OC-23, as it is known, established a historic precedent for the protection of human rights in the Americas and will be an important tool for environmental justice in the region. Learn more 2. Nations adopt the first regional treaty on environmental issues Over the course of the year, 16 nations have signed the Escazú Agreement. Not only is it the first treaty on environmental issues in Latin America and the Caribbean, it is also the first in the world to include provisions on human rights defenders in environmental matters. Its main objective is to guarantee the rights of access to environmental information, public participation in environmental decision-making processes, and justice in environmental matters. Learn more 3. Parrotfish receive special protection in Mexico Schools of colorful parrotfish feed on the macro algae that compete with coral for light and oxygen, helping to improve coral health. But overfishing and other factors have caused parrotfish populations to decline, placing corals at greater risk. In an effort to protect this key ally of the reefs, 10 species of parrotfish are in the process of being included in the Mexican government’s list of protected fauna. Learn more 4. Indigenous peoples recognized in climate finance Following years of work by indigenous peoples around the world, the Green Climate Fund approved an Indigenous Peoples Policy with the objective of protecting, recognizing, respecting and promoting their rights within the financing of climate projects. The decision was received with hope in a world that requires immediate actions to mitigate and adapt to climate change. This sort of policy helps to prevent climate finance from violating the rights of the most affected populations. Learn more 5. A regional plan to protect jaguars Conservation organizations teamed with 14 nations to launch Plan Jaguar 2030 with the intention of protecting corridors, or natural routes, linking populations of the largest carnivore in Latin America without natural predators. Jaguar populations extend through 18 countries, but are rapidly diminishing due to poaching, habitat fragmentation, and conflict with human activities. In El Salvador and Uruguay, they have been declared extinct. The plan provides hope for jaguar protection across borders. Learn more 6. Colombia says no to fracking pilot tests The Colombian Environmental Licensing Authority (ANLA, for its initials in Spanish) denied permission for ConocoPhillips to carry out the first hydraulic fracturing pilot tests for the extraction of hydrocarbons in San Martin and Aguachica, in the department of Cesar.  ANLA argued that the information presented by the corporation was “insufficient” to understand the management and availability of water, and also questioned its environmental evaluation and contingency plan. For now, the initiative is archived. Continuing to bet on fossil fuels moves nations further away their climate goals; it is important to commit to a clean energy transition. Learn more 7. A region fight against fracking reaches the Inter-American Commission Organizations and communities from across the region joined forces to bring before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights cases of human rights violations and threats to the environment caused by fracking. After various local struggles, this was the first time that the damages documented in nations across the Americas were presented before a regional organization. The Commissioners responded with great interest to the testimonies presented. Regarding this issue, the new government of Mexico said there will be no more fracking in the nation. Learn more 8. A treaty to protect two-thirds of the ocean Following a decade of discussions, negotiations began at the United Nations for a legally binding treaty to protect biodiversity on the high seas, those marine areas outside of national jurisdictions. Negotiations will take place until 2020. Although the high seas represent 64 percent of the total surface area of the ocean, and the ocean absorbs 90 percent of the heat caused by global warming, no overarching treaty exists to protect this ecosystem, only fragmented regulations. Learn more 9. Chile closes the Pascua Lama mine In October Chilean authorities confirmed the definitive closure of Pascua Lama, a gold mining project on the border of Chile and Argentina. Barrick Gold, the company in charge of the project, was fined for 33 violations of Chilean environment regulations. Pascua Lama caused great damage to native plants and animals. Indigenous peoples of the region—who had documented the contamination of a river and impacts on glaciers, an important water source—celebrated the decision. Activists are now seeking to stop the project on the Argentina side of the border. Learn more  10. Argentina’s creation of National Parks breaks record Just before the end of the year, Argentina announced the creation of two marine protected areas: Yanganes, south of Tierra del Fuego, and Namuncurá-Burdwood Bank II, in the south Atlantic. Both are important sites for the breeding and spawning of fish with high commercial value. With this pair, the country added six natural areas declared as national parks in 2018 alone, a truly historic effort. The other parks include: Traslasierra, Aconquija, Ciervo de los Pantanos and Iguerá. Argentina has proposed the protection of 10 percent of its seas by 2020. Learn more  

Why we’re working for climate justice in Latin America

“The world has many problems, but to me none seem as ubiquitous or as dangerous as climate change,” says AIDA attorney Florencia Ortúzar. “It really is the great challenge of our generation.” At AIDA we understand the magnitude of the problem. That’s why we incorporate climate justice as a key concept in all our lines of work. It’s why we advocate for sustainable development that respects the environment and the rights of vulnerable communities and, at the same time, why we work to stop climate-aggravating activities. “What motivates me to fight climate change is my awareness of the huge problem we’re facing, and my steadfast determination—I know we can’t give up,” Florencia says. She shares that motivation with AIDA’s entire team of attorneys, scientists, communicators, fundraisers and administrators. When she was a child, Florencia received a very special gift from her father: a badge that said “world saver.” That very day, on a beach in her native Chile, Florencia hooked the badge to her clothes and began picking up trash, cleaning the beach. That small gift jumpstarted her life’s mission. Florencia went on to study law, with the goal of working for the protection of forests, rivers, animals, and all the elements of the natural world. “Luck was with me when I found AIDA, the organization that has trained me and has enabled me to make my contribution to a better world,” she says.  Florencia is part of AIDA’s Climate Change program. Our objective is to help Latin America—one of the regions most vulnerable to the climate crisis—be a leader in the type of changes required on a global level to avoid catastrophe. In partnership with allied organizations and hand-in-hand with communities, we work to stop the blind advance of fracking and large dams, mega-projects which imply significant emissions of methane, a greenhouse gas 34 times more powerful than carbon dioxide. We also work to raise awareness and educate public policy makers on the importance of controlling short-lived climate pollutants. We seek to protect terrestrial and marine ecosystems that capture carbon emissions—such as coral reefs, mangroves, wetlands and páramos—which, in turn, helps to mitigate climate change. We monitor international climate negotiations, advocate for Latin American nations to have the necessary economic resources to deal with climate change, and work to ensure that climate finance respects human rights. “Although many of the effects of climate change are inevitable, and may already be occurring, the efforts we make to stop the problem and to adapt to it will help future generations, who had nothing to do with causing the problem,” Florencia explains. She shares her message wherever she goes, encouraging others to join the fight. “I refuse to be part of the last generation to enjoy the natural wonders of our planet.”  

UN Committee recommends Argentina “reconsider” the use of fracking

The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of the United Nations expressed its concern about Argentina’s intention to exploit unconventional oil and gas reserves in Vaca Muerta, one of the world’s largest shale deposits. It recommended the goverment reconsider those plans to ensure compliance with the nation’s international commitments on climate change. ​ Geneva, Switzerland. The Committee of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of the United Nations recommended that Argentina reconsider its plans for the large-scale exploitation of shale gas and oil in Vaca Muerta, one of the world’s largest deposits of unconventional hydrocarbons. The Committee expressed its concern after reviewing the nation’s fourth report to the Universal Periodic Review on human rights, encouraging the government to reconsider the use of fracking in order to ensure compliance with its international obligations on climate change. "The Committee is concerned that this hydraulic fracturing project contradicts the State’s commitments to the Paris Agreement, and would have a negative impact on global warming and the enjoyment of economic and social rights by the global population and future generations," read the concluding observations on Argentina's report, approved by the Committee at its 64th session, which took place from September 24 to October 12, 2018. The Committee urged the State "to promote alternative and renewable energies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and establish national targets with benchmarks defined over time." The Committee also expressed concern about the lack of adequate evaluation of fracking’s negative impacts on the environment and human health, and about the absence of prior consultation with affected local populations. In that sense, the Committee entrusted the Argentine State to: "... adopt a regulatory framework for fracking that includes assessments of its impact in all provinces, preceded by consultations with affected communities, and with appropriate documentation of its effects on air and water pollution, radioactive emissions, risks to health and safety at work, its effects on public health, noise pollution, light and stress, potential seismic activity, threats to agriculture, soil quality, and the climate system." The UN Universal Periodic Review is a process that offers each State the opportunity to declare what measures it has adopted to improve the human rights situation in the country and to comply with its obligations in this area. Its objective is to improve that situation and address human rights violations wherever they occur. PRESS CONTACTS: Víctor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, [email protected], +5215570522107 Fernando Cabrera, Opsur, [email protected], +5492995864313  

The IPCC climate report: science has spoken and we must act now

The international scientific community has spoken: the only thing that can save us from a climate catastrophe is a radical and immediate change. The next 11 years are the most important in the history of the planet, in terms of climate change. Our response to their message will determine our future. In its most recent analysis, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the United Nations establishes the impacts that could occur if the planet’s average temperature increases by more than 2°C, and compares those with what would happen if we stop warming, or at least keep it below 1.5°C. The 2016 Paris Agreement, an international accord to curb climate change, aims to keep warming well below 2°C with respect to pre-industrial levels, and to continue global efforts to limit it to 1.5°C. The impacts of global warming The IPCC experts’ conclusions are piercing. Those extra 0.5°C would be lethal for millions of people and their ways of life. If the Earth warms 2°C or more, we would experience: more frequent and intense heat waves, droughts and floods; sea level rise of an extra 10 centimeters, implying coastal flooding and filtration of salt water into agricultural areas and freshwater sources—a matter of life and death for roughly 10 million people; double the risk of habitat loss for plants and vertebrates, and triple the risk for insects, considering more than 100 thousand species which were studied; the disappearance of more than 99% of coral reefs, while 10 to 30 percent of what remains could be saved if we were to stabilize the planet’s temperature below 1.5°C; an increase in the range of mosquitoes that transmit diseases such as malaria and dengue; and the devastation of crops and livestock, severely affecting global food security. So, how are we doing now? Not so well. The planet has already warmed 1°C since preindustrial times, and in 2017 the emissions responsible for warming increased again. The commitments nations made to comply with the Paris Agreement are insufficient. Settling on that level of ambition would take us to 3°C warming by 2030, a reality with unimaginable consequences. Changing our climate destiny Let’s talk about solutions. Ensuring that the planet’s warming doesn’t exceed 1.5°C is possible, but it will require unprecedented action. Emissions must lower by 45 percent between 2010 and 2030, and we must achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. That means not emitting more than what the world’s forests and natural carbon sinks can absorb. This will require that: the most polluting industries, particularly those producing fossil fuels, implement radical changes; renewable energy is the norm by 2050, accounting for between 70 and 85 percent of total energy production; coal-fired power plants disappear; transportation runs with clean, renewable electricity; and we expand, maintain, and care for forests and other natural carbon sinks, which are responsible for removing emissions from the atmosphere. The IPCC report also recognizes a monumental opportunity: the mitigation of short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs)—including black carbon or soot, methane, hydrofluorocarbons and tropospheric ozone. More climatically intense than carbon dioxide, SLCPs are responsible for half of global warming. Because of their short duration in the atmosphere, they could play a key role in reducing warming in the short term. In addition, the reduction of SLCPs brings important benefits for human well-being, including the reduction of pollution that affects public health and better yield of crops. But few countries have included the reduction of short-lived climate pollutants in their national commitments on climate change. At AIDA we’re working so that Latin American nations advance in the control of these emissions. As the region with the greatest potential for renewable energies, Latin America has the opportunity to be an example for the rest of the planet. The threats facing the region are great and avoiding them is well worth the effort. Climate change threatens to shake us from our very roots—melting Andean glaciers, increasing droughts and floods, diminishing freshwater supplies, driving species to extinction, increasing wildfires, favoring the spread of invasive species, losing corals and marine biodiversity, affecting food security, and wreaking havoc on people’s health and livelihoods. The outlook is clear: maintaining global warming below 1.5°C is not an easy task, but science holds it’s possible. We have the scientific knowledge, and the technological and financial capacity to achieve this goal. The responsibility now lies with governments, decision-makers and the private sector—together they must drive unprecedented changes. We must remember that implementing these changes is not just possible, it’s desirable. A world with fewer emissions is a cleaner and a fairer world for us and for future generations. What’s not to like?  

Protecting herbivorous fish, to secure a future for corals

Say no to large dams: 3 reasons to opt for alternative energy sources

By Florencia Ortúzar and Monti Aguirre* Hydroelectric energy has been one of the largest drivers of development in many Latin American nations, and still represents a large portion of the region’s energy matrix. But is it really the best option? In response to a blog by the Inter-American Development Bank reflecting on the future of the hydroelectric sector in Latin America, we’d like to reflect on what it means to continue betting on large dams in Latin America. What follows are three reasons why we must say no to more large dams: 1. Better alternatives to hydroelectricity exist, and should be considered in project planning Before selecting an alternative energy source, governments and companies should develop a strategic plan that analyzes energy needs and the best way of achieving them. In this analysis, all options must be considered. It’s worrysome that this doesn’t already happen. For example, in the case of the Hidroituango dam—thought to be the largest in Colombia and associated with serious socio-environmental damages—the government decided to not conduct a prior evaluation of alternatives. Although the law did not require it at the time, the evaluation was recommended and is an international standard that large financial institutions should apply when investing in projects of this type. Today, other energy sources—like wind and solar—are proven to be economically competitive, can be constructed more quickly, and do not aggravate climate change. Innovations in smart grids, power storage and batteries also solve intermittency problems and make hydroelectric plants unnecessary. Geothermal, tidal, and wave energy are alternatives, the potential of which we have not even glimpsed. The promotion of large dams only delays adoption of the truly clean energy solutions that Latin America and the planet desperately need. According to the Bank’s own studies, Latin America has the largest quantity and most varied sources of renewable energy in the world. The region's renewable resources could provide almost seven times the installed capacity worldwide, excluding hydroelectric power. Therefore, although the region still holds great potential for untapped hydroelectric power, it’s necessary to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the situation, taking into account the costs and benefits as compared to other energy options. Only then can governments decide whether it’s worth continuing to invest in hydropower, or whether it’s better to opt for other types of energy—thus avoiding the social, environmental and financial impacts that come with large dams. 2. Large dams cause socio-environmental damage and are not profitable It has been demonstrated repeatedly that the socio-environmental impacts of hydroelectric plants are greater than initially considered. In addition to forced displacement and the criminalization of those who oppose them, large dams flood land, reduce river flows, and change the ecosystems of downstream wetlands, destroying habitats and contributing to species extinction. All this impacts the lives of nearby communities, limiting their ability to adapt to climate change. In economic terms, a study by the University of Oxford concluded that “even before accounting for the negative impacts on human society and environment, the actual construction costs of large dams are too high to yield a positive return.” In it, researchers show that the budgets and timeframes of large dam projects are consistently underestimated. Brazil’s Belo Monte Dam, for example, ran two times over its original budget, making it the most expensive public works project in the Amazon region. The budget of Chile’s Alto Maipo Dam has doubled four times over since the project was approved in 2009. Recognizing that the costs far outweigh the benefits, some countries have opted for dismantling large dams. And private companies have scrapped hydroelectric projects altogether because they are neither economically viable nor profitable. The United States government  has adopted a policy to refuse any loan, donation, strategy or policy supporting the construction of large dams. 3. Large dams contribute to climate change Climate change must be considered when discussing the relevance of hydroelectricity. Reservoirs generate significant quantities of greenhouse gases, particularly methane, which is 30 times more effective at trapping heat than carbon dioxide. Likewise, the construction of dams endangers valuable carbon sinks like rivers and forests. For that reason, a proper analysis of carbon dioxide and methane emissions should be conducted before choosing a dam project—a process that usually doesn't occur. Another aspect to consider is the vulnerability of dams to climate variations. Extreme rainfall increases sedimentation, which can cause structural problems and reduce the dam's lifespan. Droughts, now increasingly frequent, can render dams inefficient. As more dams lose efficiency, Latin America—now highly dependent on hydroelectricity—will be more vulnerable to energy shortages. Even more serious is the threat posed by large dams in extreme weather events. In a dam gave way during bad weather, erasing entire villages. In Laos earlier this year, mass evacuations were ordered after heavy rains threatened a dam collapse. In Kerala, India, torrential rains, coupled with the mismanagement of several dams, have caused unprecedented flooding. In certain countries, the risk of dams overflowing or collapsing has already been recognized as a serious problem. Over time, more hydroelectric plants will begin to deteriorate and will require large investments to safeguard the communities living downstream. As civil society representatives working for a more just and sustainable Latin America, we urge financial institutions like the Inter-American Development Bank to support the change we as a region need. We call on them to stop investing in large dams, which have been demonstrated time and again to be dangerous to the environment and local communities, costly for countries, and unsuited for our rapidly changing climate. It’s time for a better energy plan. And it’s time to invest in non-conventional renewable energy based on thorough, independent and high-quality social and environmental impact assessments, the planning and implementation of which respect human rights. * Monti Aguirre is the Latin America Program Coordinator for International Rivers.  

We all deserve to breathe clean air

I was born and raised in Bogota, Colombia’s bustling capital city. When I was a child, I grew accustomed to the chaos of the streets—thousands of cars and buses spewing black smoke into the air, the endless honking of horns. It was normal to see massive smokestacks and smell bad odors. I thought all cities were that way, and that nature and clean air only existed in places far from home. I was used to having health problems: headaches, rashes, eye and throat irritation, coughs and hay fever. I never questioned why my sisters and I were constantly fighting these “environmental allergies.” Pollution even prevented me from enjoying the outdoors. I couldn’t easily walk or ride my bike, for example, because my lungs struggled from the soot emitted by passing trucks and buses. There were days I had to leave my house wearing a mask, and times when we were forbidden from playing outside due to the pollution. Air pollution: a silent killer As an adult, I realized that environmental allergies are not the norm. Often, they are caused by constantly breathing in black carbon, ozone, sulfur dioxide and other pollutants that cars, buses and factories emit into the atmosphere each day. I realized that air pollution is a serious threat to quality of life and to a person’s health, especially among the most vulnerable, like our children and the elderly. According to the World Health Organization, millions of people die each year from illnesses related to air pollution. In Latin America, it is the number one environmental health risk, and causes more than 150,000 premature deaths per year. Cities like Mexico City, Monterrey (Mexico), Cochabamba (Bolivia), Santiago de Chile, Lima (Peru), Medellin (Colombia), San Salvador (El Salvador) and Bogota have the highest levels of air pollution in the region. When cities are allowed to expand without regulation, population skyrockets—and with it, so do the number of cars and trucks and factories. I worry about the future of my family in that scenario. I don’t want the air we breathe to negatively impact our health. My husband, who is not from Bogota, moved there to be with me. One year later, he was diagnosed with asthma. When my daughter was just two months old, she had a respiratory infection that put her in intensive care for several days. The cause of both their illnesses: the city’s poor air quality.   Stopping the contamination The majority of the world’s population lives in cities. And while we can’t expect our cities to be pristine, natural ecosystems, they should provide people with the minimal conditions they need to lead dignified, healthy lives. That’s why AIDA works to improve air quality in Latin America, advocating for the protection of our children and other populations highly vulnerable to atmospheric contamination. We are raising awareness among policy makers about the importance of regulating short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs), which stay in the atmosphere for a relatively short period of time. Unlike carbon dioxide, which can stay in the atmosphere for centuries, SLCPs remain in the air from a few days to a few decades. SLCPs include soot (also known as black carbon) and methane gas. These contaminants are major contributors to climate change, degrade air quality and have serious impacts on food security and human health. Effectively reducing them could significantly improve air quality and advance the fight against climate change in the short-term. Through our experience in international law, we’re seeking ways to regulate these short-lived pollutants across Latin America. Because having clean air to breath is one of life’s basic needs. Clean air shouldn’t be a luxury.  

Argentina’s approval of fracking wells violates international obligations

The authorization of four fracking wells within the Vaca Muerta shale deposit poses a risk to vital water sources and violates the rights of Mapuche communities. In support of an amparo filed to invalidate the project’s approval, AIDA presented evidence detailing Argentina’s failure to comply with international environmental and human rights obligations. Mendoza, Argentina. Argentina violated international environmental and human rights obligations when it authorized the development of four fracking wells in indigenous territory.  The wells would damage vital water sources and violate the rights of Mapuche communities, AIDA explained in an amicus brief presented before the Supreme Court of Mendoza Province. The brief supports an amparo seeking to invalidate the project’s approval, filed by the Environment and Natural Resources Foundation (FARN, for its initials in Spanish). “Fracking was authorized in Mendoza without any environmental impact assessment,” explained AIDA Attorney Claudia Velarde. “In fact, the project was presented for authorization as ‘infrastructure adaptation’ and the environmental authority granted the permits in a record time of just six days.” The wells are located within Vaca Muerta, the largest non-conventional deposit of shale gas in Latin America.  Mapuche indigenous communities—recognized by the National Institute of Indigenous Affairs—live in the project area and, as such, have the right to prior consultation; operators must receive their free, prior and informed consent for any activity affecting their territory. The energy company El Trebol S.A. failed to recognize that right when assessing the project. As a result, the project’s authorization violates Convention 169 of the International Labor Organization, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People—all international standards recognized by Argentina. “The chemicals used in fracking can contaminate both surface and groundwater, including, in this case, those of the Llancanelo lagoon, a wetland of international importance under the Ramsar Convention, a treaty ratified by the government of Argentina,” said Velarde. “The site is a zone of passage and rest for more than 130 species of resident and migratory birds.” In addition, fracking activities require large amounts of water, while Mendoza has for years suffered from drought, a problem only aggravated by climate change. Finally, the brief emphasizes that there is neither detailed geological data of the zone nor quality information on the dynamics of the groundwater. “Faced with this scientific uncertainty, authorities have an obligation to apply the precautionary principle,” Velarde explained. “An activity as potentially harmful as fracking must be rejected unless those seeking to implement it can prove that it will not cause serious and irreversible damage to the environment.” Press contact: Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, [email protected], +5215570522107  

Comparative Analysis of SLCPs Institutional and Legal Framework in Three Latin American Countries

Astrid Puentes Riaño, AIDA's co-executive director, and Florencia Ortúzar, an AIDA attorney, are the lead authors of chapter 12 of Progress and Opportunities for Reducing Short-lived Climate Pollutants across Latin America and the Caribbean, a publication edited by the Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC), the Molina Center for Energy and the Environment and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Short-lived climate pollutants are gases and particulates that contribute to climate change and degrade air quality, affecting health and thus the enjoyment of human rights, especially among the most vulnerable populations. To promote measures to mitigate SLCPs, the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), in collaboration with the Institute for Energy and Environment (IEMA) in Brazil, has written a report that analyzes the legislative and regulatory frameworks governing SLCPs in Brazil, Chile and Mexico. 23 The review covers policies, laws, and air quality and climate change programs, as these relate to SLCPs. The three countries were chosen because they contribute an important amount of SLCPs regionally, and their governments have shown political will to reduce the contaminants. Mexico has already officially incorporated SLCPs into its climate change policies. Chile has recently included actions to mitigate SLCPs in its new National Action Plan on Climate Change 2017-2022. In contrast, Brazil has displayed few signals that the government will adopt concrete measures to regulate SLCPs anytime soon, though it has shown political will to reduce GHG emissions as a whole. Cost effective measures to mitigate SLCPs exist and have already been applied in various countries with proven positive short-term impacts.  

Inter-American Court establishes historic precedent for the protection of human rights in the Americas

In response to a consultation made by Colombia, the Court recognized the right to a healthy environment as fundamental to human existence. They also recognized the impact of climate change on human rights. At AIDA we celebrate this decision, which strengthens the obligations of States to protect the natural environment and those who depend on it.  The Inter-American Court of Human Rights established a historic precedent for the protection of the people of the Americas in its response (Advisory Opinion) to Colombia’s consultation on the scope of States’ obligations to protect human rights from damages to the marine environment in the Greater Caribbean region. “We celebrate this decision, which will undoubtedly serve as a global example and a fundamental legal tool for those of us who work for environmental and climate justice,” said Astrid Puentes Riaño, co-executive director of AIDA. “It will also serve as an impetus for the States of the region to protect key ecosystems, such as the Guarani Aquifer, the Andes, the Amazon, the Pacific and the Greater Caribbean region.” The Court concluded that a healthy environment is an autonomous right, “fundamental to the existence of humanity,” in the first time they have developed the subject. It also recognized the impact of climate change on the effective enjoyment of human rights, particularly for the most vulnerable populations, such as indigenous peoples, children, and those living in extreme poverty. With this decision, taken in November and made public yesterday, the Court welcomed and enhanced similar recognition by organisms of the United Nations and regional courts. The Court established that the obligation of States to respect the rights to life and personal integrity, in relation to environmental protection, implies that they must: Avoid causing “significant” environmental damage in and outside their territory, for which they must regulate, supervise and monitor activities that could cause harm. Assure, among other things, the realization of effective and independent environmental impact studies, as well as mitigation and contingency plans for potential damages. Cooperate with other States and provide them with information regarding risks to their natural environment. Apply the precautionary principle to protect the rights to life and personal integrity due to serious and irrevocable environmental degradation, even when scientific uncertainty exists. Guarantee the rights to public participation, access to information related to potential environmental harms, and access to justice in decision-making that could affect the environment. In January of 2017, AIDA presented observations on Colombia’s consultation and, in March of that year, participated in a hearing before the Inter-American Court. We argued that the implementation of large infrastructure projects in the Greater Caribbean and other areas could affect the environment to such a point that they could put at risk the life and personal integrity, among other human rights, of the people living there. “The Court has taken an important step towards the protection of the oceans and other key ecosystems by incorporating international commitments to environmental protection as part of the obligation of States to protect human rights,” said Gladys Martínez, senior attorney of AIDA’s Marine Program.  Consult and download a summary of the Court decision here. Press contact: Victor Quintanilla,+521 5570522107, [email protected]