Climate Change

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]  

Celebrating 7 Advances to Close Out 2017

As the year comes to a close, we're happy to share with you several recent advances we've made in the name of environmental protection in Latin America. Each project we launch or case we win is a step toward a more just region, and a healthier planet for our children. Because of your support, we:1. Saved Colombia’s Largest Coastal WetlandWe successfully petitioned Colombia to list the Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta among the world's most at-risk wetlands, opening up the resources needed for its recovery.  Learn More2. Launched the Bolivian Environmental Justice NetworkWe founded a coalition of environmental and human rights organizations in Bolivia to support citizens’ efforts to defend the environment and those who depend on its health. 3. Campaigned to Protect Patagonia from Salmon FarmsWe petitioned Chile to investigate damage being done by salmon farm operations in Southern Patagonia, and launched a citizens’ campaign to raise awareness of the growing threat. Learn More4. Secured Healthcare for Victims of Toxic PollutionWe secured specialized medical care for residents of La Oroya, Peru, whose lives and health have long been affected by a heavy-polluting metal smelter that operates beside their homes.Learn More5. Protected Sea Turtles on the High SeasWe represented Latin American citizens and organizations in the development of a United Nations treaty to protect the shared parts of our ocean and the rich life within.Learn More6. Stimulated Divestment from Mining in a Protected WetlandWe convinced the World Bank to withdraw support from a gold mine in the Santurbán páramo, a protected ecosystem and water source for millions of Colombians. Learn More7. Advised Rural Town in the Lead-Up to a Mining BanWe provided legal advice and scientific analysis to the people of Cajamarca, Colombia, who then voted by a margin of 98% to ban all mining activities from their territory. Learn More 

5 ways our governments can confront climate change

As individuals, we know about the small actions we can take to help reduce the emissions that cause climate change. But what can and should our governments do, seeing as their large-scale actions are fundamental to the welfare of their people? Earth, we have a problem: we’re essentially melting. High rates of greenhouse gas emissions, paired with environmental degradation and the overexploitation of natural resources, have us in a race against time. Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree that climate change is a result of human activities. And if we fail to stop global warming soon, the changes will be catastrophic. Each year, at the United Nations climate conference, global leaders meet to discuss actions we can take to help prevent, and be better prepared for, climate change. At COP21 the first binding global climate accord, the Paris Agreement, was born. This year, during COP23, delegates seek to establish rules to allow for its proper implementation. As individuals, most of us understand what we can do to reduce emissions: save energy, use the car less, recycle more, make better consumption choices, and engage in family planning. But what can our governments do? To discuss their contribution is to talk about large-scale measures that are vital to ensuring a better future for all.   1. Protect and restore key ecosystems Respect for nature is fundamental. Governments must protect ecosystems key to the fight against climate change: rivers, wetlands, oceans, forests and mangroves absorb large quantities of carbon, slowing warming. Mangroves also serve as a barrier against tropical storms, and wetlands absorb excess water from floods, both extreme weather events exacerbated by climate change. “Healing the natural system is the most feasible, realistic and fair option, since it would benefit humanity and all species,” said Florencia Ortúzar, an attorney with AIDA’s Climate Change Program. “In terms of conservation and restoration, we’re in a race against time, and we’re already beginning to witness alarming natural phenomena, like forests so degraded they’re losing their ability to absorb carbon.”  2. Support small agricultural producers According to the FAO, the meat industry is responsible for 15 to 18 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions, exceeding even those of the transportation sector. In addition, it is the most significant source of water use and contamination in the world. Today, 80 percent of all agricultural production goes toward feeding animals not people. The expansion of land for livestock, and the crops to feed them, is the most significant cause of deforestation in the Amazon. Governments can make a difference by supporting small local producers who, unlike large factory farms, employ sustainable practices, care about land restoration, benefit nearby communities, and make animals and crops more resilient to climate change. It’s less about everybody becoming vegetarians, but more about supporting those who produce our food with a respect for nature. 3. Promote green energy Thirty-five percent of all global emissions come from energy production. But as countries bet on more development, they’re also betting on more energy production. But as countries bet on more development, they’re also betting on more energy.  While thermoelectric and hydroelectric energies were long considered the cheapest options, technological developments have allowed us to find better, cheaper, more efficient alternatives. With proper long-term planning, nations can avoid old climate-aggravating energy sources (hydropower is not green) and opt for small wind, solar, geothermal, oceanic and other projects that adapt to a place’s unique characteristics. “When thinking about energy, it’s best to bet on a diversified matrix, prioritizing projects that are close to places where people need energy, saving on losses and infrastructure,” Ortúzar explained. “We must give absolute priority to the protection of nature. Every action, public policy, or strategy should be analyzed with nature in mind, and the production of energy is a good starting point.”  4. Combat short-lived climate pollutants Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most infamous greenhouse gas. Since it remains in the atmosphere for centuries (even millennia), even if we stopped all its emissions sources today, the effects of climate change would continue. The good news is that other contaminants exist that contribute to climate change and only last a few days or years in the atmosphere. They’re known as short-lived climate pollutants, and they’re responsible for 30 to 45 percent of the emissions that cause global warming. These pollutants include black carbon (soot), methane, ozone, and the hydro fluorocarbons found in refrigerants. Their effective control, through national policies and regulations, could accelerate the fight against climate change in the short term. In addition, because they cause serious air pollution, measures to mitigate them would directly benefit human health.  5. Bet on adaptation, not just mitigation In the fight against climate change, work aimed at reducing emissions, stopping their effects and diminishing future consequences is known as mitigation. It is important. However, some communities are already experiencing tragic consequences due to changes in climate over a short period of time. So we also must act to prevent catastrophes, increase resilience, and reduce vulnerability, which is known as adaptation. Projects to mitigate emissions are more attractive financially than those designed for adaptation, which are generally focused on the most vulnerable communities. But it is important to give adaptation the significance it deserves in recognition of the fact that the impacts of climate change are already a grave reality for many. At this year’s COP, representatives are discussing a “loss and damage” mechanism, referring to the compensation that developed countries – the main causes of climate change – must make to developing countries, which suffer significant losses due to adverse climate effects, Ortúzar explained. Our governments must support these discussions and commit to the effective use of resources, so all the world’s people can be better prepared for, and help to prevent, greater changes to our climate.   

Advisory Opinion 23 of the Inter-American Court on Human Rights

November, 2017 Response of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to the consultation made by Colombia on the obligations of the States of the Americas in relation to the environment, and within the framework of the protection and guarantee of the rights to life and personal integrity. 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. Read and download   Infographic   Download the infographic in Spanish Download the infographic in Portuguese Download the infographic in French