Climate Change

Climate Change, Freshwater Sources

Mexico takes action to protect its wetlands from unsustainable development

AIDA and the members of the National Wetlands Committee have won a big victory after years of legal work to protect Mexico’s estuaries, coral reefs, mangroves and other wetlands. On February 4, 2014, Mexico’s Natural Protected Areas Commission (CONANP) announced a national wetlands policy, a legal framework we had been calling for since 2009. “It’s not a panacea, but it’s a good start,” says Sandra Moguel, an AIDA attorney who participated on the National Wetlands Committee, a CONANP -led group that helped develop the policy. Mexico is rich in wetlands. The country ranks second after the U.K. in the number of protected wetland areas under the Ramsar Convention, an international treaty for the conservation and sustainable use of these ecosystems. Centuries-old coral reefs serve as breeding pens for fish that feed the populace and delight divers. Mangrove forests house endangered species and perform increasingly important ecosystem services: they absorb carbon emissions and buffer the coastline against storms made harsher by a warmer climate. But many coral reefs, mangroves, estuaries, and rivers have suffered from poorly planned development. On the Sea of Cortez, for example, plans for mega-resorts have kept us busy defending Cabo Pulmo’s coral reefs, and now a proposed port expansion is threatening reefs in Veracruz. To protect these and other wetlands, we have had to draw on a jumble of laws and policies. Not any more. Now we have a specific instrument that is in line with the laws and policies for the protection of wetlands. The new policy sets actions, goals and priorities for the management and protection of wetlands. It is a vast improvement. And while a national wetlands policy is a Ramsar requirement, Mexico’s policy stands out from many others in the world for creating not just principles and guidelines, but also an action plan to make them happen. For example, the government will soon set and sustain minimum water levels to preserve mangroves. Other actions will guarantee the reasonable use of wetlands. Fishing, tourism, and other activities that rely on wetlands must be carried out sustainably. If damages occur, the state must ensure ecosystem restoration. A key element that AIDA pushed for is the principle of environmental progress. The new policy stops the government from continuing to modify and reduce natural protected areas to make way for large infrastructure projects or to benefit private interests. Now the authorities must preserve and promote environmental progress by respecting protected-area status and by improving safeguards. We are thrilled. This principle could help AIDA in our legal battle to stop construction of the Las Cruces hydropower project on the San Pedro Mezquital river. The dam would reduce water flows and sediments needed to feed and sustain mangroves in Marismas Nacionales, a protected wetlands area on the Sea of Cortez. Construction of the dam would clearly reverse environmental progress. The new policy has its weak spots—for example, it doesn’t set dates for reviewing the progress of the action plan, and the actions could be supplemented for more effect—but comparatively, it is at the forefront of wetlands policies in Latin America. “Mexico is setting an example,” Moguel says. “Let’s hope that this encourages other countries to follow suit.” Your contributions helped us press for and contribute to the development of the new policy, and with your continued help we will be able to aid Mexico in its efforts to protect its vital wetlands.

Read more
Toxic Pollution, Climate Change

Short-Lived Climate Pollutants: A great opportunity to put the brakes on climate change

By Florencia Ortuzar, legal advisor, AIDA While many of us are alarmed by climate change and its already tangible effects, concern becomes even greater when learning the fact that all the CO2  accumulated in the atmosphere cannot be removed, even if we were to shut down all the sources of emissions today. This reality was confirmed in the Fifth Assessment Report on the state of the climate, issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The explanation for this is simple: CO2, in contrast to other gases and pollutants, remains in the atmosphere for millennia after being released. It is stuck in the atmosphere for what is eternal for human standards, implying that its greenhouse effect does not end even with an immediate halt in emissions. The good news is that CO2 is not the only cause of global warming. There are other pollutants that, unlike CO2, only stay in the atmosphere for a relatively short time. These “other” agents are responsible for 40-45% of global warming, and they remain in the atmosphere for a minimum of a few hours to a maximum of a few decades. They are called short-lived climate pollutants, or SLCPs. Like CO2, SLCP emissions have a negative impact on humans and ecosystems. So a reduction in these pollutants would bring immediate relief to the worst affected by climate change and would bring important benefits to the environment and people. The main SLCPs  Although all SLCPs contribute significantly to climate change and share the trait of being short-lived, each has its unique characteristics and emission sources.  Black carbon or soot, is a particulate substance produced by the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, mainly from motor vehicles, domestic stoves, fires and factories. The dark particles heat the atmosphere as they absorb light, and when the particles land on snow and ice they accelerate melting. Black carbon also affects human health by causing respiratory problems such as lung cancer and asthma.  Tropospheric ozone is a gas formed by the reaction of the sun with other gases called "precursors," which can be man made or naturally occurring. One of these precursors is methane, another SLCP. Tropospheric ozone is associated with diseases including bronchitis, emphysema, asthma and permanent scarring of the lung tissue. Studies also show that this gas has a direct impact on vegetation, reducing crop yields and the ability of plants to absorb CO2. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, and 60% of its emissions come from human activities like rice farming, coal mining, landfill and oil combustion. Two important sources of methane include cattle farming, whose effect has dangerously increased with industrial meat production (Spanish), and large dams, especially those in tropical areas.  Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are man-made gases used in the production of air conditioners, refrigerators and aerosols. They have replaced chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which were banned under the Montreal Protocol. Although HFCs represent a small proportion of the greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere, their use is growing at an alarming speed of an average of 10-15% each year, according to a United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report.   Everyone wins According to the IPCC, the reduction of these pollutants could avert a rise in average global temperatures by approximately 0.5 degrees Celsius by 2050, cutting the current rate of global warming in half and helping to protect some of the areas most susceptible to climate change like the Arctic, the high Himalayan regions and Tibet. The mitigation of SLCPs is also crucial for decelerating glacial melting and rising sea levels, a serious situation for the world’s population that lives in coastal areas. The reduction of SLCPs would also bring important socio-environmental benefits. Black carbon and tropospheric ozone harm human health and reduce crop yields. This in turn affects ecosystems, food security, human welfare and the entire natural cycle that keeps the planet healthy. Some talking points Given that SLCPs stem from different sources, effective mitigation requires a series of comprehensive actions that deal with each pollutant separately. Fortunately, the road is already laid out. Many of the technologies, laws and institutions needed to cut SLCP emissions already exist. In the case of black carbon, new technologies are inexpensive and available. Developed countries have already reduced emissions significantly through the use of green technologies. Ideas include the modernization of domestic cooking systems in the region, introducing the use of solar cookers and new transport systems with improved exhaust filters to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.   The amount of methane in the atmosphere, which affects the level of tropospheric ozone, is largely dependent on industrial activities. To reduce emissions, effective regulations should be implemented to control the industries that emit the most methane, including intensive cattle farming, mining, hydrocarbons and large dams. For HFCs, an alternative already exists. There need to be regulations that encourage people to substitute HFCs for greener alternatives, no matter the commercial barriers. Some countries have proposed incorporating HFCs in the Montreal Protocol, an international agreement recognized as one of the most successful initiatives to significantly and rapidly reduce CFC emissions, addressing a similar challenge, to the one we face today. To find out more about SLCPs, you can read a briefing paper (Spanish) put together by AIDA, CEDHA, CEMDA and RedRacc.

Read more
Accountability and Transparency, Climate Change, Climate Change

Report from COP19: Warsaw, Poland

A terrifying nightmare came true before their eyes. Waves of up to seven meters (23 feet), propelled by winds that reached 315 kilometers per hour (196 miles per hour), caught the inhabitants of the Philippines off guard, devouring everything in their path. Typhoon Haiyan was the most devastating of the climate shocks that frequently hit the Asian country. “We can stop this madness.” With those words, Yeb Saño, the Philippine’s climate change commissioner, demanded “climate justice“ for his people during the inauguration of the 19th Conference of the Parties (COP19) on climate change in Warsaw, Poland. The tragedy was palpable in his eyes and voice. The effects of climate change are unmistakable. Ocean levels and temperatures are rising, and this is provoking storms surges of such intensity that they’re impossible to ignore. No more time can be wasted in coming up with the financing needed to fight this problem. And we must set the rules for the effective use of these funds. AIDA is pushing for this. At the COP19, we worked with other civil society organizations to encourage the governments of developing countries to draft an action plan next year designed to fulfill a vital commitment: making US$100 billion available to developing countries from 2020 for fighting climate change. Part of these funds will be channeled through the Green Climate Fund (GCF). AIDA has assisted in putting pressure on the governments of developed countries to provide certainty about the contributions they will make to this financing mechanism. We also have taken part in the creation of GCF by participating at meetings of its Board of Directors. Our short-term goal is to ensure that the role of civil society is effective and meaningful in the GCF decision-making process. Long term, we want the GCF to support effective actions for climate change mitigation and adaptation that will not only help reduce emissions but also benefit the most vulnerable communities that already are being affected by the phenomenon. Our presence at the COP19 also made it possible for AIDA to form alliances with groups from different sectors – civil society, youth, indigenous peoples, among others – in order to develop and strengthen a joint position ahead of the COP20 to be held in Peru. We hope that the COP20 will set the foundation for a new and hopefully successful climate agreement at the COP21 in Paris. We also worked with partner organizations to develop a briefing paper (in Spanish) on short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs), which we distributed in Warsaw. As SLCPs remain in the atmosphere less time than CO2, reducing these contaminants is a valuable opportunity for a short-term solution to global warming and an important element that should enter into the new climate agreement. With your support we will continue fighting to prevent typhoons and other natural disasters from becoming a way of life.

Read more
Accountability and Transparency, Climate Change

Climate change funding: Needs and expectations

By Andrea Rodríguez, legal advisor, AIDA, @arodriguezosuna, and Mónica Valtierra, AIDA volunteer Warsaw, Poland. In the discussions about the financial resources needed to tackle climate change, the plenary session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 19) in Warsaw focused on three topics: long-term financing, a report by the Standing Committee on Finance, and another report of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) of the COP.  Long-term financing  The Philippines. The Philippine representative said long-term financing is crucialfor developing countries and that the outcome of the agreements reached in 2015 will depend on how far those countries are willing to go to see them through.  He said: “There needs to be clarity on the specific amount [of resources required] and which projects will receive the finances. But until now the situation can only be described as disastrous.”   Egypt. The Egyptian delegate, on behalf of an African group of nations, said: “The agreements will depend on the climate fund’s progress in realizing its goals,  the ability of countries to keep the global temperature from rising at less than 2°C this century, and mobilizing US$100 billion. These are the urgent issues.  European Union. The EU reaffirmed its commitment to mobilize climate change finances with the expectation that the Green Climate Fund will increase its funding in the area of adaptation.  Malpes. The Malpes’ delegate spoke about the need to strike a balance between the funding granted for global warming mitigation and what is put toward climate change adaptation. It is an essential issue for developing countries, he said.  Colombia. Colombia’s delegate called for continued efforts to secure climate change funding because up until now there has been very little action taken in this regard. The commitment of US$100 billion in funding for climate change  mitigation and adaptation is another a pressing task, he added.  The Standing Committee report  The Philippines. The Standing Committee has a great deal of work to do, especially with regard to the issues of transparency and access to information, the delegate said on behalf of the G77. “We need to strengthen the mechanisms in place for monitoring, verification and reporting purposes before 2015,” and fully address the issue of additional financing, he said.  Egypt. Along the same vein of the Philippines, this delegation emphasized the urgent need to provide support for the verification, monitoring and reporting mechanisms.  Bolivia. The Bolivian delegate spoke about access to funds, which he said is “the cornerstone of addressing the impact of climate change.” It requires the support of all countries, he added.  Green Climate Fund (GCF) report to the COP  The co-chairs of the GCF said the organization must be ambitious and have ever-increasing efforts. They repeated earlier calls to strike a balance between the funds put toward mitigation and adaptation to climate change, and to mobilize financial resources before mid-2014.  On this topic, the countries said the following:  The Philippines. There are high expectations for the GCF, said the delegate. But three years after the COP meeting in Cancun, Mexico, it is time to start moving the money.  Egypt. The mobilization of funds should be optimized as soon as possible and the Fund must concentrate on sustainable financing for climate change, this delegation said.  India. According to this delegation, the agreements to be reached in 2015 depend on the climate funding that exists at that time. He reiterated the idea of finding an equilibrium between the resources for mitigation and adaptation of the Fund.  Zambia. “Fifty percent of the funds should be put toward adaptation measures,” which will also support programs set up to reduce poverty in vulnerable groups, said the Zambian delegate.  Malpes. On the importance of mobilizing financial resources promptly, this delegate called for the funds to be available before the COP 20 in Lima.  Uganda. This delegate reminded the audience that climate change is not waiting for the mobilization of resources to begin. 

Read more
Climate Change

Short-lived climate pollutants: An opportunity to reduce emissions

AIDA together with CEDHA, CEMDA and RedRacc have produced a briefing paper on short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) for presentation at the 19th Conference of the Parties (COP19) on climate change, which is running November 11 to 22 in Warsaw, Poland.   SLCPs are agents that contribute to global warming and have a relatively short lifetime in the atmosphere, from a few days to a few decades. That’s different from CO2, which remains in the atmosphere for centuries or millennia after emission. CO2 contributes an estimated 55% to 60% to global warming, while the remaining 40-45% comes from the emission of SLCPs. The latter seriously affect human health and ecosystems, meaning that any reduction in their emissions also brings significant social benefits.   The fact that these contaminants remain so little time in the atmosphere means that their mitigation brings short-term benefits, in particular to the most vulnerable regions of the world already suffering the impacts of climate change. We must seize the opportunity to reduce SLCPs in the fight against the effects of this global challenge.   Our paper explains what SLCPs are, which are the most relevant ones, and what are the reasons we should work to regulate and reduce their emissions. The paper also provides recommendations for taking on the challenge. Read the Fact Sheet (in Spanish)

Read more
Accountability and Transparency, Climate Change

Can COP19 move the Green Climate Fund closer to reality?

By Andrea Rodríguez, AIDA's legal advisor, and Marcus Pearson, AIDA's volunteer (article published in Respond/RTCC Magazine) The Green Climate Fund was created as an effective response to the impacts of climate change by channeling financial resources from developed to developing countries. Will this happen? The Conference of the Parties in November will provide an opportunity for developing countries to lobby for significant financial commitments from the developed world to ensure the long-term viability of the GCF. The Green Climate Fund (GCF) was created in 2010 at the 16th Conference of the Parties (COP16) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Its mission is to channel public and private financial resources to developing countries to help them mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change through low-emission and climate-resilient programs. But nearly four years later, the GCF has yet to disburse any funds. The GCF board has held four meetings with only limited results. At the first meeting in Geneva in August 2012, the board selected two interim co-chairs: Mr. Zaheer Fakir of South Africa and Mr. Ewen McDonald of Australia. It also formed committees, designated the World Bank as Interim Trustee, and agreed to invite observer organizations to participate, albeit in a restricted capacity. A lack of consensus stalled decisions at the October 2012 meeting in South Korea, where the only notable motion was making Songdo, South Korea the GCF’s headquarters. More advances came at the February 2013 meeting in Berlin. The board adopted procedural rules to govern its actions, regulate board member selection and define the participation and role of civil society observers. This laid the groundwork for the GCF to carry out its mission. At the June 2013 meeting in South Korea, the board then discussed the GCF’s business model framework (BMF) and the policies, guidelines and organizational structures needed to commence operations. The board also chose the governance structure of the private sector facility (PSF) [i] and appointed Ms. Hela Cheikhrouhou of Tunisia as executive director of the GCF Secretariat. The fifth meeting in Paris could address the many outstanding issues still needed to bring the GCF into effective operation. To do so, the Board must overcome its perceived ineffectiveness. Civil society concerns Civil society organizations (CSOs) are concerned about the GCF’s decision-making process and future. Perhaps the greatest issue is the uncertainty of funding. The GCF board has started to identify project areas and define criteria to allocate resources, but developed countries have yet to pledge meaningful funds. Concrete commitments are essential to ensuring the availability of predictable resources needed to achieve long-term results to mitigate and protect against the impacts of climate change. CSOs also fear that a lack of transparency and accountability will hamstring the GCF. Transparency does not seem to be a priority for the board. For example, the board has decided against webcasting its meetings even though the UNFCCC commonly does so, helping to cut costs and carbon emissions associated with travel. If the GCF already broadcasts meetings to observers in an overflow room, why not webcast? CSOs fear the board does not want to make its meetings open to the public. Lack of public accountability remains a concern particularly because of the small opportunity given to civil society to participate in the decision- making process. The GCF will mobilize financial resources from both public and private sectors, and civil society oversight is needed to ensure that policies do not respond to the investment interests of the private sector but to the needs of the most vulnerable. Moreover, the board is not granting CSOs meaningful opportunities for participation. The GCF publishes documents before meetings without sufficient time for many CSOs to review and comment on proposals[ii]. Meanwhile, only two CSO representatives may actively participate at board meetings in person and even so may not be allowed to talk or approach board members[iii]. These practices call into question the GCF’s legitimacy. Globally, CSOs play a vital role in developing climate change policy by informing decision makers about local issues and needs, and by providing examples of best practices for resource allocation. Given that the GCF stresses accountability in its mandate, CSOs should have access to government representatives and information in open and transparent meetings. COP19: An opportunity for the GCF? The COP19 this November in Warsaw will show the world whether the GCF can become an effective engine for climate change funding in developing countries. At this conference, developing countries must seek firm financial commitments for climate adaptation and mitigation. Only guaranteed funding will enable the board to make effective decisions regarding resource distribution or provide developing nations with a clear picture of how much funding is available. The GCF Board must also seek -- and receive -- guidance because many COP attendees will benefit from GCF resources. Countries can use the COP to provide advice on GCF policies, share their priority needs for funding, and recommend criteria to guarantee access to resources. The COP will also give CSO representatives a chance to raise questions and highlight counterproductive practices. Conclusions The COP presents a prime opportunity for developed nations to commit to the GCF’s stated goals and pledge desperately needed financing. Parties and CSOs must use the COP – GCF’s monitoring body – as a tool to improve GCF accountability, inclusivity and transparency so that the GCF can truly work to benefit vulnerable populations in developing countries. The COP should be a benchmark for advancing the GCF rather than just another event for developed countries to congratulate themselves on timorous steps forward. [i] The PSF will enable the GCF to directly and indirectly finance private sector mitigation and adaptation activities at the national, regional and international level. [ii] For the June meeting in South Korea, documents were published less than two weeks before the meeting, rather than 21 days as outlined in the additional rules of procedure decision taken in Berlin. [iii] As was the case on the last day of the meeting in Songdo.

Read more
Large Dams, Climate Change, Human Rights

Dams, mines threaten indigenous rights: Recommendations from UN human rights expert

By Jessica Lawrence, Earthjustice's research analyst A longstanding goal of Earthjustice and the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) has been to sound alarms at the United Nations, in national courtrooms and in international fora such as the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights about environmental and human rights violations associated with mines and dams. Indigenous peoples are particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of such extractive and energy industries in their territories. Last April, Earthjustice and AIDA provided evidence of these harms, as well as recommendations about how to avoid them, to U.N. indigenous rights expert James Anaya, who recently issued a report on extractive and energy industries and indigenous peoples. Comments from Earthjustice and AIDA focused on mine closure, describing how inadequate closure, restoration or monitoring can cause severe, long-term environmental contamination that can violate indigenous and human rights. We identified steps that countries can take to prevent these problems, including enacting strong laws on pabipty of mine operators and requiring operators to provide financial guarantees to ensure adequate clean-up during and after mine closure. Such measures can help protect human rights to health, clean water and a clean environment, as well as indigenous rights to culture, food, a means of subsistence and their lands and natural resources. Anaya’s report includes a number of recommendations with environmental and health imppcations. Key recommendations include: Guaranteeing indigenous communities’ right to oppose extractive and energy projects without fear of reprisals, violence, or coercive consultations. If a government decides to proceed with a project without their consent, indigenous communities should be able to challenge that decision in court. Rigorous environmental impact assessment should be a precondition. Indigenous communities should have the opportunity to participate in these assessments, and have full access to the information gathered. Governments should ensure the objectivity of impact assessments, either through independent review or by ensuring that assessments are not controlled by the project promoters. Measures to prevent environmental impacts, particularly those that impact health or subsistence, should include monitoring with participation from the pubpc, as well as measures to address project closure. If governments and project operators followed Anaya's recommendations, it would substantially reduce the harm caused to indigenous peoples by the often shameful and irresponsible conduct of extractive and energy industries. AIDA, to which Earthjustice provides significant support, works with local communities to address human rights violations from extractive industries throughout the hemisphere, including the Barro Blanco dam in Panama, the Belo Monte dam in Brazil, the La Parota dam in Mexico, and mines in the Andean ecosystems of Colombia.

Read more
Climate Change

Letter to the Board of the Green Climate Fund

Organizations, movements and civil society groups from developing countries -with decades of experience working for the rights and aspirations of peoples and communities- express their unified call for the adoption of the most robust environmental and social protections at the Green Climate Fund.

Read more
Climate Change

AIDA and CEMDA joint report on the UPR of Mexico

In accordance with the guidelines of the Human Rights Council, the Mexican Environmental Law Center (CEMDA) and the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) present comments on the extent of Mexico’s compliance with the recommendations the country accepted as part of the 2009 Universal Periodic Review (UPR). We also present comments on other human rights violations related to environmental issues, which we believe should be taken into consideration during the next Universal Periodic Review set to take place later this year.  

Read more
Climate Change

The challenges of deploying wind energy in Mexico. The case of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec

To combat climate change, low-carbon projects such as wind farms must be promoted. But despite the urgency for renewable energy, these projects must be carried out in a sustainable and equitable fashion. This article is an open call to Mexico and the world to improve planning and development practices for renewable energy projects, helping to guarantee the respect of the human rights of affected communities. The Mexican government has authorized the development of at least 14 wind power projects on the Isthmus of Tehuantepec in Oaxaca, one of the poorest states in the country with a more than 34% indigenous population. The projects are backed by international investors including the Inter-American Development Bank and benefiting from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol. Even so, a number of projects have caused negative social and environmental impacts that outweigh the benefits, threatening the human rights of local indigenous communities, including the right to free, prior, and informed consent for projects affecting their lands and livelihoods. The reason for this problem is that the Mexican government has not developed effective rules or mechanisms to regulate these investments. Without them, private companies have had to negotiate directly with local communities. There are other factors aggravating the situation, too: Locals lack information: Residents of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec say they have not received comprehensive and timely information about the projects. Some residents said in recent public forums that they were not told about the potential environmental impacts of the projects, such as those now affecting the possibility to cultivate their lands. Threats and violence against locals opposing the projects: For more than two years, the Jijot and Zapoteca communities have raised complaints about their leaders receiving threats and attacks by paramilitary groups and state officials seeking to silence any opposition to the development of wind farms. Lack of free, prior and informed consent: In the rush to grant permits and administrative permissions to wind power developers, the Mexican government has not fulfilled its obligation to consult local indigenous communities as guaranteed by international law. Unreasonable terms of land leases: A number of wind developers have signed contracts with local communities that offer paltry payments for the use of their land. Locals have complained about the lack of a process for negotiating on fair and equal terms. Absence of comprehensive and community-wide benefits: Some wind projects lack a comprehensive environmental and social development plan, meaning that they only benefit a fraction of the population: mostly investors and the companies that will buy the energy. While some locals have leased their lands at reasonable prices, the payments haven’t brought the promised development. Environmental impacts: Some projects have caused extensive environmental damage, yet studies to identify, prevent, and alleviate these damages have never been carried out. Impacts include the burning of large swaths of pastureland (a cause of greenhouse gas emissions), mangrove deforestation, and the destruction of migratory bird habitats. To mitigate the social and environmental impacts and avoid the violation of human rights during the development of wind farms, the following actions are suggested: Create a protocol for wind power development that guarantees the respect for human rights. The protocol should be observed in all relevant public policies. And it must meet the following standards: include criteria and indicators to verify the fulfillment of all environmental and social conditions; incentivize economic growth in the region, particularly to the benefit of non-landowners; promote collaboration between private developers, state and local governments, and local communities. Guarantee that all stakeholders and affected communities receive timely, comprehensive and clear information on the projects. The communities have the right to free, prior, and informed consent, and this must be observed. Their decisions must be respected even if they oppose a wind farm. Stakeholders should also seek opportunities to benefit local communities, including through job creation and the support of communal projects. Elaborate and implement a process for measuring the externalities of the projects, in which Mexico’s Federal Electricity and Hydrocarbons Regulator will evaluate sustainability based on independent assessments. If a development fails to benefit local communities, the wind farm must be prohibited from accessing the electricity grid to sell output. As representatives of civil societies working to protect the environment and affected communities, we want to raise awareness about the possible negative impacts of wind farms on communities and promote better practices. We will continue to help affected communities in search of justice and equity.   About the authors:   The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) is a nonprofit environmental law organization that works across international borders to defend threatened ecosystems and the communities that depend on them. Its mission is to strengthen people's ability to guarantee their individual and collective right to a healthy environment through the development, implementation, and effective enforcement of national and international law. Contact information: [email protected]   The Mexican Environmental Law Center (CEMDA) is a nonpartisan civic organization that promotes environmental protection and the right to a healthy environment. Its work contributes to the effective implementation of legislation, improvement of public policies, and the strengthening of legality and the rule of law. Its objective is to achieve better social welfare conditions in harmony with nature. Contact information: [email protected]

Read more