Climate Change

Latin America advances on climate change

Though the United States is no longer committed to the fight against climate change, Latin America is making much needed progress. Countries throughout the region are beginning to take the protection of nature seriously, evident through new laws and sustainable projects. But we still have a long way to go. Latin American is home to more than half the biodiversity on the planet. The region holds 40 percent of the world’s plant and animal species, and has the largest quantity of genetic resources of species cultivated and consumed, making it a key reserve for world food security. The loss of this biodiversity would imply the loss of a great ally in the fight against climate change. The region’s abundant green areas capture excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, allowing for climate regulation. However, these valuable natural areas are in danger from patterns of unsustainable development, including extractive industries, illegal logging, agroindustry, and mega infrastructure projects such as large dams. The United States, one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases, has denied the very existence of climate change, and has turned it’s back on global efforts to find effective solutions. So now it’s up to the rest of the world. Some Latin American governments, thankfully, have been taking the lead by adopting laws, implementing policies, and jumpstarting projects that are fundamental to countering extreme changes in climate. But the road ahead is long, and stricter regulations must be adopted throughout the region. Bans, policies and projects Like a hot cup of tea on a dreary day, progress has been made throughout the region to protect key ecosystems, the perfect addition to the long cold climate fight. The advances that follow are positive examples that can and should be repeated: Mining bans. Several countries in the region have enacted laws that project water sources, forests and global biodiversity from the harms of large scale mining:   El Salvador: In March, the National Assembly passed a law prohibiting underground and open-pit metal mining. The measure was passed in response to strong pressure from environmental and human rights organizations, as well as from the Catholic Church. Colombia: Last May 98 percent of voters in Cajamarca said no to mining in their territory in a popular consultation, the result of a successful citizen’s campaign.   Wetland Protection. Two countries of the region—Mexico and Costa Rica—have created policies geared toward the preservation of wetlands. Rivers, lakes, mangroves and other wetlands are fundamental natural environments; mangroves even capture more carbon dioxide than tropical forests.   Protected Areas. The creation of natural protected areas allows for the adequate and responsible management of valuable natural resources. Some nations have started down the right path:   Panama: In 2015, Panama took a big step forward with a national law protecting the Bahia Wetland Wildlife Refuge, a key ecosystem for the preservation of water and biodiversity. Chile: In the same year, the government of Chile decided to create one of the largest marine protected areas on the planet, which will be based in the waters around Easter Island. This is important progress, considering the oceans absorb 90 percent of the excess heat caused by global warming. Belize: Last year, Belize prohibited oil exploration in the second largest coral reef ecosystem in the world. Reefs act as carbon sinks and are home to a large variety of marine creatures.   Green projects. Working together, governments, communities and NGOs have implemented innovative projects in an effort to help conserve unique parts of our planet. Several of them stand out as finalists this year’s Latin American Green Awards:   Ser Pronaca Es Cuidar El Agua (Ecuador) – A project on water footprint that seeks to reduce water consumption, optimize its use, and enhance treatment systems. Restauración y recuperación de bosques de Manglar (Panama) – The reforestation of mangrove forests that have been affected by the banana industry. Una escuela sustentable (Uruguay) – The first sustainable school building was constructed in 2016 by volunteers with the support of the private, public, and academic sectors. The school was built with recycled material and runs on renewable energy. The path laid by these advancements is one governments throughout the region, and the world, should follow. But much work, and little time, remains. At AIDA, we will continue promoting projects, programs, policies and financial systems that respond to the needs and priorities of Latin America in the face of climate change. 

Ramsar Secretariat advises Colombia to add Ciénaga Grande to list of world’s most threatened wetlands

Experts at the Ramsar Convention, an international treaty for the protection of wetlands, identified “significant changes” due to human interference in the ecological characteristics of the area. They recommended, among other things, that Colombia enroll the wetlands in the Montreux Record, a register of seriously threatened wetlands requiring immediate attention. Bogotá, Colombia—Following a visit to the Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta wetlands in August of last year, a mission of international experts from the Ramsar Convention, an inter-governmental treaty for wetland protection, released a report recommending that the Colombian government include the area in the Montreux Record—a register of gravely threatened wetlands requiring immediate attention. “Given the significant changes in the ecological characteristics of the Ciénaga Grande wetlands, we recommend including it in the Montreux Record,” said the report issued last week. These changes “require urgent action by the government of Colombia to maintain and restore the area’s ecological character, and to protect it in accordance with the objectives of the Convention,” the report said. Among changes mentioned in the report are overexploitation and contamination of the wetlands’ waters, diminished fresh water due to increased sedimentation and obstruction of waterways, “huge loss” of mangrove forests caused by road and infrastructure projects that block water flow, and declining fish populations. “Including Ciénaga Grande in the Montreux Record would allow the Ramsar Wetland Conservation Fund to provide economic assistance through grants. It would also allow Ramsar scientists to provide expert advice and recommendations on best practices for the recovery and conservation of the ecosystem,” explained Juan Pablo Sarmiento Erazo, a researcher from the Universidad del Norte. In addition, the Ramsar report recommends two other solutions to the wetlands’ rapidly degrading condition: performing effective dredging based on new plans for water management and strengthening coordination among institutions that manage the site. “The key is that the Colombian government should follow the Ramsar recommendations to the letter, implement improvements as soon as possible, and make necessary changes in the site’s management,” said Gladys Martínez, an attorney with AIDA. “The Montreux Record is far from being a blacklist. It’s an opportunity for governments to demonstrate responsible management of natural resources that demand urgent attention.” Ramsar experts visited the site from Aug. 22–26, 2016, following a 2014 petition filed with the Ramsar Secretariat by AIDA, el Universidad del Norte, and the University of Florida. Scientist Sandra Vilardy at Universidad del Magdalena also contributed. “We hope the government will make the report official,” Vilardy said. “The document mentions that it is imperative to re-establish aquatic balance in the wetlands, emphasizing the role that rivers play in feeding Ciénaga Grande.” More information on Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta is available here. Press contacts: Gladys Martínez, AIDA Attorney, +506 8321 4263, [email protected] Carlos Lozano Acosta, AIDA Attorney, +57 300 5640282, [email protected]  Juan Pablo Sarmiento, Universidad del Norte, +57 300 5514583, [email protected]  

As US withdraws from Paris Climate Agreement, Latin America must step up

Without US participation, other countries must urgently limit greenhouse gas emissions. Now that President Donald Trump has withdrawn the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement, Latin American nations must act with new urgency to combat global climate change. In a blow to the Paris Agreement, Trump’s move sends a message that the U.S. federal government is no longer committed to curbing greenhouse gas emissions. The United States, Syria, and Nicaragua are now the only nations that refuse to join the historic fight against global warming. The Paris Agreement, which directs countries to set targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, was hailed as the first truly global climate deal to curb climate change. “This has huge implications for the Global South in the fight against climate change,” said Astrid Puentes, Co-Executive Director of the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense, or AIDA. “We can no longer rely on the U.S. government to set an example for climate progress. Now more than ever, it’s important that Latin American countries step up efforts to curb their greenhouse gas emissions.” Although the United States and China are the largest emitters of greenhouse gases, nine percent of total global emissions come from Latin America, according to the UN Economic Commission on Latin America and the Caribbean. “In a region with immense ecological diversity, Latin America has an opportunity to take a leadership role in protecting natural resources and communities by shaping a clean energy future without reliance on fossil fuels,” Puentes said. “Without the United States, Latin America now needs to lead the global fight against climate change, and AIDA will continue to be at the forefront of that fight.” AIDA has worked with Latin American governments to increase their capacity to secure international funding for climate projects, raised awareness that many dam reservoirs emit significant amounts of methane, built a regional effort to counter the spread of hydraulic fracturing projects, and helped to protect critical carbon sinks, among other projects. As a team of environmental and legal experts, AIDA also works to protect the human rights of people and their communities throughout Latin America. AIDA is the only regional organization in Latin America that provides free legal support to communities and organizations dedicated to protecting human rights and the environment.  Press contact: Astrid Puentes Riaño, Executive Co-Director, [email protected]

Spending climate dollars on large dams – a bad idea

During its last board meeting, the Green Climate Fund—charged with financing developing nations’ fight against climate change—approved two projects related to large dams.  That means $136 million will finance large-scale hydropower, contradicting the Fund’s goal of stimulating a low-emission and climate-resilient future. We’ve said it before: large dams are not part of the paradigm shift we need. They worsen climate change and are highly vulnerable to its impacts. They also cause grave economic and socio-environmental problems that make it impossible to label them as sustainable development. dam Projects before the gcf While the two projects will exacerbate climate change, they aren’t the most destructive we’ve seen.  The first is expected to generate 15 MW of electricity in the Solomon Islands, an impoverished Pacific archipelago highly vulnerable to climate change. Planned for the Tina River, the dam will be the country’s first major infrastructure project. Today, the Solomon Islands rely almost entirely on imported diesel to produce energy. It is an unreliable, highly polluting energy source for which residents must pay one of the highest rates in the region. We would have liked to see the Solomon Islands leapfrog toward a more sustainable alternative, avoiding the era of large dams altogether. But we were pleased to see the World Bank’s consultation and engagement processes with local communities, which lend legitimacy to the project. The second project will rehabilitate a dam built in the 1950’s in Tajikistan. The repairs will make the dam more resilient to weather and less subject to accidents. Since it is focused on rehabilitation, the project will not generate the socio-environmental impacts typical of ground-up dam construction. Tajikistan already gets 98 percent of its energy from hydropower, an increasingly unreliable energy source. In fact, during colder months, when more energy is needed, more than 70 percent of the population suffers cutbacks due to the malfunctioning of dams. It’s unreasonable to use climate finance to deepen a country’s energy dependency instead of diversifying its matrix and increasing its climate resiliency.    Our Campaign against large dams When we learned that large dam proposals would come before the Fund, just before the 14th meeting of the Board of Directors, we drafted a letter explaining why large dams are ineligible for climate funding.  Then, in anticipation of the 16th meeting, during which the projects would be discussed, we sent Board Members an informational letter on each of the projects, signed by our closest allies. Finally, during the board meeting, we circulated a statement signed by a coalition of 282 organizations, further strengthening our position against the funding of large dams. We obtained official replies from several members of the Board, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (in charge of the project in Tajikistan), and the Designated National Authority of the Solomon Islands. Delegates from Canada and France requested further discussion of the issue. The problems with large dams received international media attention through articles published in The Guardian and Climate Home. Advancing with Optimism Although financing was ultimately granted to both of the projects, we managed to draw international attention to the contradiction inherent in funding large dams with money designated to combat climate change. Several members of the Green Climate Fund expressed doubts about further promoting large hydropower initiatives. We’re confident they’ll raise their voices when faced with projects far more damaging than those recently approved. Cheaper, more effective, and more environmentally friendly alternatives need the support and momentum the Green Climate Fund can provide. Both solar and wind power, for example, have proved to be more efficient and less costly than large-scale hydropower. Other less-developed technologies, such as geothermal, have largely unexplored potential. As part of a coalition of civil society organizations monitoring the Fund’s decisions, AIDA will continue working to ensure that the recent decision to fund large dams does not become a precedent.

Halting the implementation of large dams in the Americas

In times of climate change, we must respect nature

(Column originally published in El País) We are living now with the realities of climate change; to act otherwise would be ignorant and irresponsible. But, in case we forget, nature will surely remind us.  Over the last months, severe landslides have devastated communities in Peru and Colombia. Together, they left more than 500 people dead, dozens missing, and more than 100,000 victims. Tragedies like these have some things in common: they occurred in cities and regions with high rates of deforestation and changes in land use; in both areas there was evidence of poor planning and regulation. Effectively, these disasters were foreshadowed. They make clear once again the vital need to care for our forests and riverbanks, and to avoid deforestation and erosion. Climate change means hard rains, fires, and hurricanes will become increasingly frequent and more intense. In Mocoa, Colombia, the equivalent of 10 days of rain fell in just one night, causing flash flooding that devastated much of the small town. In many cases, nature is only taken into account after tragedy strikes. But nature, when well cared for, can literally save lives. In Mocoa, a native forest helped protect one neighborhood from being washed away. That’s why environmental protection must be taken seriously, and any exploitation of natural resources must be well planned and sensible. Yet in Latin America, there remains a regional tendency towards unregulated extractivism. Over the last few years, governments across the region have been weakening environmental regulations in the name of development. Meanwhile, year after year, hundreds of people in Latin America and the Caribbean—especially children and others in vulnerable situations—die from events associated with droughts and floods. Activists, movements, mayors, and others seeking to protect land and water from extractive activities are frequently criticized, even criminalized and attacked. In the small Andean town of Cajamarca, Colombia, 98 percent of voters recently chose to ban all mining in their territory. It’s a decision that has sparked national controversy. Critics of the referendum have questioned whether the results are mandatory, despite the fact that Colombian law clearly states, “the decision of the people is mandatory.” Through their popular vote, the people of Cajamarca reminded their government of its commitment to protect their water and natural resources. Communities in Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica, Peru, and El Salvador have done the same. While some extraction is necessary in modern society, there must be a healthy balance. Not every project is safe, and alternative development models must be embraced and explored. It’s time to incorporate the environment into public policy and development, once and for all. Two Latin American nations have shown what is possible. In 2011, Costa Rica banned all open-pit metal mining. In March, El Salvador did the same. In both cases it’s a big yet viable change, because alternatives exist and it’s understood that protecting land and water is necessary to secure a healthy future. El Salvador has the second-highest rates of deforestation and environmental degradation, which has led to severe water scarcity. This is why the ban on metal mining passed there. It was no favor to environmentalists; it was based on years of sound analysis. Social and economic studies of the proposal concluded that the best thing for the country was to care for and restore its remaining forests and water sources. The decision prioritized environmental restoration—particularly its social and economic benefits—above the perceived benefits of mining. Environmental degradation is not a problem that exists in a vacuum. That’s why States have signed treaties and other international instruments that recognize their obligation to protect the environment. The Paris Agreement on Climate Change, signed by 34 of 35 States on the American continent, is the most recent. Now, more than ever, these commitments must be honored and fulfilled. Not all extractive projects are viable. Determining their worth must involve sound planning, coupled with policies and legal frameworks that are strong and effective. Environmental Impact Studies must be done carefully, objectively, and independently. Decisions should consider short- and long-term impacts on both local and national levels. We are living now with the realities of climate change; to act otherwise would be ignorant and irresponsible. But, in case we forget, nature will surely remind us. 

Changing the way we approach large dams

Cigarettes once served to cure cough; lead-based makeup was fashionable; and DDT, a highly toxic insecticide, was used in gardens where children played. At the time, little was known of their grave impacts on health and the environment. These facts may shock us now, but once they were normal. Cigarettes, lead, and DDT were widely believed to be more beneficial than harmful to humanity. Thanks to science, we learned of their serious health and environmental impacts. We’re learning the same now about large dams. A photograph of a dam surrounded by trees is as misleading as the doctor-approved cigarette ads once were. In the last decade, we’ve seen that the damage dams do to communities and ecosystems is far greater than the benefits they provide. Recently, an academic study confirmed something even more worrying: large dams aggravate climate change. At the end of 2016, researchers from Washington State University (WSU) concluded that reservoirs around the world, not just those in tropical areas, generate 1.3 percent of the total greenhouse gases produced by mankind. Dams, they found, are an “underestimated” source of contaminating emissions, particularly methane, a pollutant 34 times more effective at trapping heat than carbon dioxide. These findings have not yet been properly absorbed. Large dams continue to be funded and promoted as clean energy. Some countries boast nearly 100 percent renewable energy, yet reports show that at least half of that is hydroelectric energy, produced primarily by large dams. Violating human rights Even before WSU’s study was made public, the damage large dams do to communities and the environment was well documented. Dams disrupt traditional lifestyles, and affected communities are forced to adapt to new environmental conditions, such as altered river flow and species migration. Many communities have also been victims of forced displacement and fall into poverty as a result. In the Brazilian Amazon, the Belo Monte Dam provides a prime example of the ways dams cause negative impacts on both people and the environment. At AIDA, we’ve worked hand-in-hand with the indigenous and river communities of the Xingu River Basin, who have seen the trees fall around them, the red earth spread like a stain across their forest, the fish disappear from their rivers, and their small islands submerged. For those living in Altamira, the city nearest the dam, living conditions also worsened significantly, with increased violence, substance abuse, and prostitution.   This story has been repeated thousands of times around the world. According to International Rivers, 57 thousand large dams had been built by 2015, disrupting more than half of the world’s rivers and causing the displacement of at least 40 million people. What can we do?  Although the WSU study may surprise governments and corporations that promote the construction of large dams, for the health of the planet the trend must be stopped. Environmentally friendly alternatives exist, which do not imply the same social, economic and climatic impacts as dams. Hope can be found in the Brazilian Amazon with the Munduruku tribe. Last year, their long fight paid off with the cancellation of a large dam project on the Tapajós River, the sacred waterway on which their lifestyle depends. The decision to cancel the dam was backed with evidence of the impacts dams have on communities and ecosystems, exemplified by the case of Belo Monte. Recently, the Munduruku gathered to discuss and find solutions for the threats they continue to face as development rages in the Amazon. Solutions include the decentralization of energy sources, the promotion of small-scale projects, and solar and geothermal energy, all of which must be accompanied by adequate community-consultation processes. But they must be studied on a case-by-case basis and according to available resources, as what’s best for one community may not be best for another. Funding must carefully evaluate which projects to support, analyzing in detail the potential socio-environmental impacts. It may sound like people are making all the wrong decisions, but now is no time to be discouraged. We have the scientific information we need to care for our planet. Societal changes prove that we can change our actions to prioritize our health. Why can’t we do the same for the health of our planet? In the last several decades, the number of smokers has drastically decreased, we’ve stopped lacing makeup and other products with lead, and DDT has been regulated. In terms of large dams, the solution lies in re-thinking the way we produce energy and prioritizing the preservation of our free-flowing rivers. 

16 Highlights of 2016: Year in Review

Thanks to the help of our partners and supporters, AIDA achieved many important advances in the defense of human rights and the environment in 2016. 

The role of civil society in the Green Climate Fund

Climate change is real, and its impacts are here to stay. The nations of the world have agreed that, to get out of this mess, they must act together. But beyond setting intentions, little progress has been made. One important opportunity to get things done is the Green Climate Fund, the primary financial mechanism of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It’s a relatively new institution with the ability to move large quantities of money from rich countries to those in development. With these resources, the most vulnerable and least financially equipped nations can develop the projects and programs they need to confront climate change.  How the Fund works in practice The Fund is a complex mechanism in which diverse actors interact. The Board of Directors, in charge of governing and supervising the Fund, is made up of 24 members, 12 representatives from developed nations and 12 from developing ones. The Independent Secretariat implements the decisions adopted by the Board. The Fund relates to countries through the National Designated Authorities or Focal Points, which are entities designated within each nation. The Fund also accredits national, regional and international institutions to channel economic resources through the presentation and implementation of climate proposals. These are called Accredited Entities. Last, but certainly not least, observers from civil society and the private sector play a key role in ensuring that the Fund takes into account the needs of local populations, especially the most vulnerable, when approving projects and programs to combat climate change. How decisions get made In practice, the Fund has been built at meetings of its Board of Directors, held every three months. There, board members discuss and decide on the policies that shape the Fund. They also grant accreditation to entities that will channel funds from the GCF to the different countries, and approve the projects and programs that the Fund will finance. Last October, I was fortunate to participate, as a civil society observer, at the 14th meeting of the Board, which was held at the Fund’s headquarters in Songdo, South Korea. I had the opportunity to see, on the ground, how this complex international mechanism works and, above all, how civil society contributes. It quickly became clear to me that the working conditions of civil society are not easy. To begin with, there is no economic support for civil society representatives that must travel and stay abroad at least three times a year to attend the board meetings. Inside the meetings of the Board, only “active observers” can participate: two from civil society and two from the private sector. The remaining observers sit in an adjoining room, following the meeting on television screens. Civil society has the right to speak, but this right can only be exercised by the two active observers, and only if the Co-Chairmen of the Board of Directors approve. All civil society interventions are previously discussed, prepared and perfected by the coalition of observers. This leads to many sleepless nights, since the subjects are broad and complex. In practice, civil society contributions are relegated to the end of the Board’s discussions. When time is scarce, a common reality, many times the right to speak is denied. This can be extremely frustrating, since crucial contributions are lost. Why civil society support is important Civil society contributes to the construction of the Fund’s policies with the objective of elevating its standards. Among other tasks, each funding proposal is studied, and the communities potentially affected by or benefitting from it are contacted, in order to understand what the project or program may actually involve, beyond what appears on paper. That’s why the informal work that civil society does “behind the scenes” is so important. It is the work done during recess, at lunchtime, and in the corridors. Gradually, civil society observers build relationships with decision makers (Board members and advisors) and are able to share their ideas, concerns and suggestions with them. The results of civil society’s work are being seen in decision-making, slowly but surely. The Green Climate Fund offers hope because its guidelines are correctly posed: it seeks to promote transformation and paradigmatic change, promises transparency, and its decisions are made giving equal weight to representatives of developed and developing nations. Its mandate is to promote “country ownership” of the programs and projects it finances, that is, to ensure they are guided by the needs and priorities of the beneficiary countries. In addition, the Fund has an obligation to act with a gender approach. However, the Fund also has problems and shortcomings. That’s why involvement of civil society is critical. Because they do not represent any government, political party or other interest, civil society observers ensure the protection of the environment, respect for human rights, and the participation and inclusion of people directly affected by climate change. The physical participation of civil society in Board meetings is vital. They ensure the Fund takes into account the voices of the communities directly affected by or benefitting from the financing. Learn more about the Fund on our website!

Why Chile is burning and what we can do about it

Uncontrollable wildfires in Chile have burned more than 500,000 hectares, an area three times the size of Mexico City. With each day that passes, the figure grows. It’s the worst environmental catastrophe the country has seen. Eleven people have died and nearly 4,000 have been affected. The flames have engulfed at least six of Chile’s 15 regions. Causes of the tragedy Much has been said about what could have started these voracious fires. Below is a compilation of the various causes, in hopes that understanding them may help us avoid and better control such fires in the future: Climate change. With the extreme changes in climate, temperatures have risen, causing an eight-year-old drought in the center of the country. This reality has enabled the fulfillment of the so-called “30-30-30” rule, which facilitates the perfect scenario for wildfires: a temperature of 30 degrees Celsius, 30 percent humidity, and winds of 30 kilometers per hour. The human factor. According to the National Forestry Corporation (CONAF), the organization responsible for fighting wildfires in Chile, the vast majority of fires are actually caused by human neglect. In this case, there have been indications that some of the fires were started intentionally. Forest plantations. This cause has the deepest roots. In the central and southern regions of the country, forest plantations have been replacing native forest. That means heterogeneous and biodiverse forests have been transformed into thousands of hectares of one single species, eliminating the natural barriers against fire. These monocultures, mostly pine and eucalyptus, quickly absorb large amounts of water, drying the soil around them and stifling most other life. In addition, both of these trees contain flammable elements that contribute to the spread of fire. Inadequate legislation. Decree Law 701, issued in 1974, sought to boost forestry development through economic incentives, leading to the explosion of large-scale pine and eucalyptus plantations in Chile.  By financing up to 75 percent of monocultures, the decree most benefited those who already owned large tracts of land. It promoted the felling and burning of native forest to replace it with monocultures of exotic species. High voltage cables. When passing over forests, these cables generate high-temperature heat waves. If a branch falls on a cable, it can easily cause a fire. Lack of prevention and preparedness. The factors mentioned above were all known realities; the risk of the current fires was latent. More should have been done to prevent them, and to have been better prepared to face them. Chile has no public policy to address the issue. There is no law on fighting wildfires or confronting other such emergencies. Prevention would involve actions ranging from regulating the activities of forest companies, to implementing effective firefighting, to avoiding the accumulation of garbage in places where fires may emerge.  What we can do about it Institutional and forestry planning appropriate for a changing climate. Changes in weather patterns have made wildfires far more likely to occur. For this reason, adequate plans and policies must be developed to deal with such situations, which will continue to be an underlying threat. Planning should be geared towards building a forest landscape resilient to a drier and hotter future. Strengthening firefighting capacities. The budget afforded to CONAF and the firefighting companies must be sufficient to cover the necessary equipment and human capacity needed to effectively battle such blazes. Regulations to prevent and protect. Legal measures must be taken to ensure that reforestation incorporates firebreaks and ample buffer zones around sensitive areas (villages, water sources and productive areas, among others). This reduces the ability of wildfires to progress and protects local biodiversity and ecosystem services. Impose responsibilities. The owners of forest plantations must be responsible for setting up firewalls and other safeguards, as well as for having emergency plans. Stop promoting monocultures and reestablish native forest. Because they are harmful to the environment and propagate wildfires, the State must stop encouraging monocultures and instead encourage the cultivation of diverse and native forests. Plan reforestation after the fire. Local development must be ensured throughout the process of reforestation, involving affected communities and stakeholders. Education and training of residents and local authorities. Those who live and keep watch over high-risk areas should know how to respond in the case of an emergency, and they must know how to prevent it. How YOU can help now The platform “movidos x Chile” has information on how to help those affected by the fires (donations, volunteering, etc.). The following organizations are receiving money to help victims: Desafío Levantemos Chile (includes information on how to donate from abroad). Un Techo para Chile. Hogar de Cristo. Ministry of the Interior (includes information on how to donate from abroad). The Red Cross (receives in-kind and monetary donations). There are also organizations focused on helping affected animals: Veterinary Medical College of Chile (receives in-kind and monetary donations). The website abandonados.cl (contains information on various organizations that offer help to the animals affected by the fires). Also, on this page you can find information about all the organizations and institutions that are receiving donations for both victims and animals, including locations across the country where material support can be provided.